The Project Gutenberg eBook of Chats on Old Silver, by Arthur Hayden.

CHATS ON OLD PRINTS.
(How to collect and value Old Engravings.)
By Arthur Hayden.

CHATS ON ENGLISH EARTHENWARE.
(Companion volume to “Chats on English China.”)
By Arthur Hayden.

CHATS ON COTTAGE AND FARMHOUSE FURNITURE.
(Companion volume to “Chats on Old Furniture.”)
By Arthur Hayden.

CHATS ON OLD SHEFFIELD PLATE.
(Companion volume to “Chats on Old Silver.”)
By Arthur Hayden.

BYE PATHS OF CURIO COLLECTING.
By Arthur Hayden.
With Frontispiece and 72 Full page Illustrations.

CHAPTER I

THE MARKS STAMPED UPON SILVER

I. The Hall-mark. Its significance—The hall-mark compulsory by law—Various hall-marks.—II. The Standard Mark. The silver standards—The Lion passant (England), the Thistle (Scotland), and the Harp (Ireland).—III. The Date Mark. The alphabets used by the various assay offices.—IV. The Maker’s Mark. Initials of surname—Later usage, determined by law, initials of Christian and surnames.—V. The Higher Standard Mark. The lion’s head erased and the figure of Britannia (compulsory from 1697 to 1720, optional afterwards).—VI. The Duty Mark. The reigning sovereign’s head from George III to Victoria (1784 to 1890).—VII. The Foreign Mark. Foreign silver plate assayed in the United Kingdom to bear an additional mark.

I. THE HALL-MARK

This is the mark stamped upon gold or silver plate by a recognized guild, and signifies that the object so stamped has successfully passed the assay applied to it to determine its quality. British hall-marks possess a reputation which they undoubtedly deserve. “In this country the system has existed substantially in its present form since the reign of Edward I.”[1] In this reign, under statutory{26} authority, it was laid down that all silver made in England was to be as good as the silver coin or better, and provincial silversmiths (one from each centre) were to proceed to London to have their work assayed and have the mark of the leopard’s head stamped upon it. For six centuries the hall-mark of the wardens of the “Mistery of Goldsmiths” of the city of London has stood as a guarantee of value, and is intended to afford sufficient protection to the purchaser.

This hall-mark, or town mark as it came to be known later, denotes the place where the assay was made. It was struck on all such articles as would bear the “Touch”; this is the technical term synonymous with assaying. As will be seen subsequently, the hall-mark does not stand alone. Very early it was deemed expedient to stamp some further mark, which should denote the date when the piece was actually assayed at the hall or assay office.

This second assay mark, or warden’s mark, is known as the date letter.

The Company of Goldsmiths in London, incorporated by charter in 1327, possessed plenary powers which they exercised with considerable rigour. They framed stringent regulations determining trade customs, they kept a watchful eye on recalcitrant members who showed any tendency to lower the dignity of the craft, and they punished with severity all those who counterfeited the official marks of the hall.

This dominance over the everyday transactions of the worker in plate was supported by a series{27} of Acts of Parliament extending over a lengthy period. They are highly technical, and the study of hall-marks is of a complex nature, and adds no inconsiderable task to the hobby of collecting old silver. In the main it will be seen that the power at first exclusively conferred on the London Goldsmiths’ Company, and afterwards distributed to various assay offices in the United Kingdom, has been kept under due subjection by the Crown and by parliamentary legislation. There is no trade more protected by Acts of Parliament governing the details of its procedure. The fashioning of gold and silver plate being so intimately related to questions of currency and affecting the coin of the realm, it is not surprising to find that the tendency of legislation has been to relieve the old guilds of much of their former power. We find that one of the recommendations of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on hall-marking, in 1879, was that the whole of the assay offices should be placed under the supervision of the Royal Mint, in order that a uniform standard of quality should be guaranteed.

We have seen that the London assay office is the doyen of assay offices. At first, plate, although wrought elsewhere, had to bear the London hall-mark of the leopard’s head. Seven cities were appointed, by a statute of Henry VI in 1423, to exercise the right of assaying plate, viz. Salisbury and Bristol for the West Country, Newcastle and York for the North Country, Coventry for the Midlands, Lincoln and Norwich for East Anglia, and London, of course, continued its functions.

{28}

Eighteenth Century Assay Offices

At the beginning of the eighteenth century three out of these seven, Lincoln, Salisbury, and Coventry, had discontinued to assay silver, and it was not thought necessary to reappoint them. In 1700 York, Bristol, and Norwich were, in the reign of William III, reappointed for assaying and marking wrought silver. By the same Act, 12 William, cap. 4, two new assay offices were appointed, Exeter and Chester, and in the beginning of the following reign by 1 Anne, cap. 9, Newcastle was also reappointed. At the end of the eighteenth century, in 1773, two additional assay offices were created at Birmingham and at Sheffield by 13 George III, cap. 52. London, during all this time had continued to assay silver in unbroken continuity from the fourteenth century.

It has been estimated by those who have a large quantity of old silver plate passing through their hands, that, in spite of the number of provincial assay offices, over 90 per cent. of old English silver bears the London hall-mark.

The Hall-marks of the Various Assay Offices

In the Appendix (pp. 347-409) are illustrations showing the various hall-marks used at different periods by the wardens and assay masters of the appointed cities. The following indicate the chief marks used. London (the leopard’s head, sometimes like a king on a pack of cards, and later, when uncrowned, like a tiger’s head). Chester (an upright sword between three wheatsheaves). Newcastle,{29} closed in 1884 (three castles set in a shield, two over one, similar in arrangement to the Chester wheatsheaves). Exeter, closed in 1883 (early mark letter X with crown above. After 1701 three castles, sometimes joined together as one castle with three towers, similar to Edinburgh mark). Norwich (castle above with lion beneath; the castle is less like a castle than any other of the castle marks). York, closed in 1856 (early mark a fleur-de-lis, showing only half, the other half undecipherable, conjectured by some authorities to be a rose, by others a leopard’s head; this latter is now accepted as correct, and clearly shows in some examples; later mark shield with cross of England and five lions). Birmingham (an anchor), Sheffield (a crown), Edinburgh (a castle with three towers). Glasgow (a tree with a bird perched on top, and a tiny bell suspended from boughs, a fish transversely across the trunk). Dublin (figure of Hibernia since 1730). Cork (ship and castle, two marks).

The Varying Number of Marks Used

It is an interesting fact, and extremely puzzling to beginners in the study of hall-marks, to find that the provincial offices used, in addition to their own place-mark, the leopard’s head of the London assay office. From 1697 to 1719 the leopard’s head disappears from all silver, for the reason which is given in detail in Section V of this chapter—“The Higher Standard Mark” (pp. 49-59). In its place two other marks occur—the lion’s head erased and the figure of Britannia. These were only used in London{30} between the years 1697 and 1701, during which five years provincial offices ceased to assay any silver. This is a hiatus in provincial marks which the beginner should note. From 1701 to 1719 the provincial offices used their place-marks together with the two new marks (the lion’s head erased and the figure of Britannia), which were compulsory by law. This law was repealed in 1719 and London reverted to the old style mark of the leopard’s head, so that London-marked silver of 1720 is marked with the same number of marks as that before the Act of 1697, that is four marks. But it appears that the provinces for a long period did not revert to the old style of marking. Newcastle, for instance, adds the leopard’s head from 1720 in addition to her town mark; Exeter similarly took the leopard’s head in 1720. Chester also added another mark, the leopard’s head, at the same time.

The result of this is that before 1701 Chester had four marks, sometimes only three, but after 1720 five were used; when the duty mark was added (see p. 395) six marks were employed. The leopard’s head was not discontinued till 1839, reducing the marks to five, and now, since the abolition of the duty mark in 1890, there are only four. Exeter had, with the use of the leopard’s head, five marks, but in 1748 the leopard’s head had disappeared. Newcastle continued the leopard’s head during the period of the duty mark, thus making six marks, till the closing of the office in 1884.

{31}

II. THE STANDARD MARK

Throughout the history of the manufacture of English silver plate the standard maintained has been always equal to that of the silver coinage, and sometimes higher. The control of the standard has long been in the hands of the State, and, it has already been shown, the proving or assaying of all articles, in order that they may be officially stamped as of sterling silver, was allocated to the wardens and assay masters of the London and other assay offices. Obviously if it had been permitted to manufacture silver plate at a lower standard than the coin of the realm, the latter would have been melted down to be made into plate at a profit. In order to regulate the uniform procedure of the trade throughout the country the amount of alloy to be added to silver was very clearly laid down by law. The standard for silver has been in force for six hundred years, since the reign of Henry II, viz. 11 oz. 2 dwts. of silver and 18 dwts. alloy in every pound troy of plate; that is 925 parts of silver in every thousand parts. From the year 1697 to 1720 the standard was fixed at 11 oz. 10 dwts. of silver to the pound troy, that is ·958. This higher or “Britannia” standard is described in Section V of this chapter (pp. 49-59). In regard to this new standard, that is a standard above the sterling of the coin of the realm, special marks were used during the above period and have been used since then to the present day whenever silver plate is{32} of the new standard. It was illegal to make silver plate of less than this new standard during the period 1697 to 1720; after this period there are two standards, the higher being optional.

Another period when silver plate was higher in standard than the silver coin of the realm was during a portion of the reigns of Henry VIII, the whole of the reign of Edward VI, and the whole of the reign of Mary, until Elizabeth in the second year of her reign elevated the debased coinage to its former standard of fineness. In 1543 Henry VIII reduced the standard from 11 oz. 2 dwts. to 10 oz.; that is, ten parts of silver to two parts of alloy. In 1545 he reduced it further to 6 oz. in the pound troy, that is half silver and half alloy. In 1546 he made a still further reduction to 4 oz., so that silver coins of that period contain only one third silver. In 1552 this was increased to 11 oz. 1 dwt., to be reduced to 11 oz. in Mary’s reign. During all these changes the silver plate remained true to its old standard, and as though in proud superiority over the coin of the realm, the London Goldsmiths adopted in 1545 as a standard mark a new stamp—the lion passant, which has been their standard mark from that day to the present time, and has been recognized by many statutes since that time as constituting the standard mark, or sterling mark of the State, or, as it was termed at the time of Queen Elizabeth, “Her Majesty’s Lion.”

On two occasions, therefore, the silver plate of this country was of finer quality than the coin of the realm: on the first when the coin of the realm was{33} debased, and on the second when silver plate was compulsorily raised to a higher standard than the coin of the realm.

The lion passant, which is the standard mark, has naturally been employed by provincial offices as a guarantee of sterling or standard silver. During the period 1697 to 1720 the lion passant disappears from all silver in the “Britannia” standard period when other marks were substituted. But in 1720 the lion passant mark occurs again on all London silver, and in Chester, Exeter, York, and Newcastle marks. From 1773 both Sheffield and Birmingham have used the mark of the lion passant. In regard to Scotland, the standard mark for Edinburgh, after 1757, is a thistle, and for Glasgow a lion rampant after 1819. The Irish standard mark is a harp crowned from the year 1638, which mark is on all Irish silver assayed at the Dublin office. From 1730 the figure of Hibernia has been the duty mark and the harp crowned the standard mark on all Irish silver assayed at Dublin. These marks are shown in Appendix (pp. 347-409).

{34}

III. THE DATE MARK

Among the various marks used for the purposes we have indicated, the date mark is one which has a vital significance. It establishes with certainty the year in which a piece of silver was fashioned and taken to the assay office to be stamped as sterling silver. The easiest plan in regard to date marks would have been to stamp the actual date upon each piece of silver or gold assayed, but this was too simple a procedure for the “Mistery of the Goldsmiths.” They employed alphabets of various styles and each year was represented by a different letter, and to add further to the puzzling difficulty of deciphering these symbols, certain letters were omitted. Moreover, each assay town has its own series of date marks. Letters of the alphabet are used sometimes from A to T, or A to U, or from A to Z; sometimes the letters J and V are omitted, and in one case for a considerable period the letters of the alphabet were used indiscriminately. Various kinds of type were used and they appear in shields of differing shapes. The study therefore of the date marks of the London assay office and of the various provincial assay offices together with the date marks used in Scotland and in Ireland is very intricate, and the determination of these with exactitude might occupy a man the greater portion of his life. The standard work on the subject is “English Goldsmiths and their Marks,” by Mr. C. J. Jackson, which contains over eleven thousand marks reproduced in facsimile.{35} Mr. Jackson in the 1905 edition had worked for seventeen years at this subject, and his labours have been stupendous; a new edition shortly to appear will represent a quarter of a century’s work. There is no other book on the subject within measurable distance of this encyclopaedia.

It is obvious that in the present volume only a limited number of marks can be illustrated, but the author has given typical examples covering the London marks, which are the most important, and a few examples from most of the provincial assay offices as well as from Scotland and Ireland. These will be found in the Appendix (pp. 347-409).

London

The Goldsmiths’ Company of London has an honourable and ancient history and must be regarded as the leading spirit in regard to hall-marks. It is admitted that, from a public point of view, the hall-marks stamped on silver by the various assay offices have a very definite meaning. “Our hall-marks afford a guarantee of value to which, it is not to be wondered at, considerable importance attaches, since these goods may safely be regarded as an investment.” The true function of the Goldsmiths’ Company is a protective one—protective in the interests of honest traders, protective in the interests of public buyers. We suggest that they might perform an educational service by throwing open their assay office to public inspection. Neither the Royal Mint nor the Bank of England may be said to be an inaccessible holy of holies. The assaying of silver and{36} gold is a process which affects the pocket of the public to a large extent.

As custodians of historic archives of no insignificant value, there is no reason why such records should not be as readily accessible to the general student as are the papers in the Public Record Office which divulge bygone State secrets. Possibly if the assaying were placed under Government supervision, as has so often been strongly advocated, these things might come to pass.

In regard to data undoubtedly the Goldsmiths’ Company can claim an ancient record. They are proudly jealous of their reputation and rightly anxious to guard the public interest. There is no doubt that “the laws of hall-marking, scattered as they are over a multitude of statutes, are highly technical, and not the least necessary reform is their consolidation.” The Goldsmiths’ Company was once a trade guild, but this is the twentieth century, and they exist solely in the public interest. To-morrow they could be swept aside by an Act of Parliament, and all silver could be assayed and stamped at the Royal Mint or by Government assayers.

In regard to the date letters the London Assay Office has consistently, with one exception, 1696, adhered to twenty letters in each alphabet, that is from A to U (omitting J). But the provincial offices were wofully erratic and exhibit a looseness and want of system in not adhering to the same arrangement of alphabets in succeeding periods. It is not necessary to follow these eccentricities in detail, a few examples will suffice. Newcastle from 1702 to{37} 1720 employed the alphabet as follows:—A (1702), B (1703), D (1705), F (1707), M (1712), O (1716), P (1717), Q (1718), D (1719), E (1720). Some of these were used for more than one year. In the next two periods, 1721 to 1739 and 1740 to 1758, the alphabet ends at T. Later alphabets run to Z. Chester employed an alphabet sometimes ending in X, sometimes in V, and sometimes in U, and one series runs from A to Z (excluding J) from 1839 to 1863.

The result of the somewhat chaotic alphabet marks has been to focus the attention of the collector too much on this particular side of the subject. The identification of marks, the outward symbols of time and place, have reduced the study of old silver to a somewhat lower plane than it should occupy by right. It is proper that such determining factors should have their place, but not the first place. There was a time when china collectors ignored paste and glaze and laid particular stress on marks, and it is a very happy accident that a great portion of English porcelain and much of English earthenware is unmarked. It has eventually led collectors to think for themselves and know something more of the technique and to learn to appreciate the artistic value of specimens of the potter’s art coming under their hand.

The collector of old silver, however, cannot hope to escape from marks; they are an integral part of the subject, and coming as they do under the strict surveillance of the law, they offer protection to his investment and have the comforting assurance of gilt-edged security. There is nothing of the subtle{38} speculation as to exact period which accompanies the acquisition of old furniture, nor is there the same element of chance which governs the operations of the picture collector. The hall-mark, the standard mark, the date mark, and the maker’s mark stamped with mechanical precision proclaim “with damnable iteration” the string of unalterable facts.

In regard to marks it is interesting to read what Mr. Octavius Morgan, the pioneer of the study of hall-marks, says in 1852: “Every person who is possessed of an article of gold or silver plate has most probably observed a small group of marks stamped on some part of it. Few however have, I believe, regarded them in any other light than as a proof that the article so marked is made of the metal which it professes to be, and that the metal itself is of a certain purity. And this is in fact the real ultimate object and intention of these marks; but besides this the archaeologist can deduce from them other important and interesting information, as by them he can learn the precise year in which any article bearing these marks was made. It is therefore to these marks that I am about to direct attention with a view to elucidate their history and peculiar meaning.” To Mr. Morgan’s labours in an unknown field all subsequent writers on hall-marks are indebted. He was the first collector who realized their importance. It seems amazing that up to 1852 nothing appears to have been known to the intelligent layman or the public at large of these symbols which had appeared on plate for some six hundred years. It suggests the idea that the marking was regarded in the nature of a trade secret. The{39} “mistery” of the Goldsmiths’ Company was not to be profaned by vulgar eyes. In the light of this it may be conjectured that the chaotic arrangement of alphabets came about not by accident but by design.

(See Chronological List of Specimens illustrated in this volume, p. 414.)

{40}

IV. THE MAKER’S MARK

This of all the marks should be the most intimate and should indicate the personal touch, as something coming from the craftsman to the possessor. It is the heirloom which the old silversmith hands to posterity. His mark signified his pride in his art, that is in the days when craftsmen were artists and whatsoever their hand found to do they did it with all their might. But the maker’s mark, set on it first by his punch when he duly sent his apprentice to the assay office to have it assayed and marked by the great functionaries of his guild, has become eclipsed beside the imposing array of symbols stamped upon it at the Goldsmiths’ Hall. That the piece exists and was brought into being by the humble silversmith is of lesser importance than the row of legally environed escutcheons signifying so much with such unerring veracity: that it was assayed and found of standard quality, so down comes the stamp of the lion passant; that the year was so and so anno domini, down comes the stamp of the secret date letter, so carefully guarded from the public; that the duty was paid, and not till then, another stamp, this time with the king’s head; and last but not least, down comes the stamp of the leopard’s head, denoting that all this was done under the surveillance of the Mistery of Goldsmiths of London. Hence the collector, who comes a century or two after these great happenings, by capricious fate casts his lens on the signs manual of standard,{41} and proofs of place and date; but the bare initials of the maker, which came first from the furnace to the assay office, now come last, as insignificant letters merely denoting that the specimen happened to have been made at all.

What would one give for a few human touches in connexion with our old silver! We may imagine that our candlesticks of the year 1750 held the flickering wax candles which were guttering when the dawn broke when our great-great-grandfather lost his fortune at cards in the county of —, or maybe it was somebody else’s grandfather. But this is in the realms of fancy, and the fortune is literally fabulous. Why are there no George Morlands in the silversmith’s craft? Cannot the guilds dig out their romantic history from their archives? Just to think that our designer of candelabra and flagons ran a fine career on Hounslow Heath with gamesters and fighting men; or did he, just that once, have a duel with young Lord What’s-his-Name in the Guards, and pinked him? Did not the story get to White’s and to the Cocoa Tree Clubs, how the tradesman scored! But no such thing. All these initials of makers are empty of such vanities. We can do better with prints. Those who possess the engraved work of Ryland have the satisfaction of knowing that he was hounded by Bow Street runners and hid, like the modern Lefroy, at Stepney, and that he was hanged for forgery.

There is William Blake, who dreamed as great dreams as Joseph of old, who gave imaginary sittings to Pontius Pilate, who wrote wonderful poetry, and{42} who died in a garret. Copper-plates were dear, but he had no poverty of invention, and since the days when as a child he saw angels following the reapers in the corn, he lived for posterity and left his record. But have gravers on silver and inventors of symmetrical goblets of gold less blood than those who drew lines on copper? There is something human missing in these strings of initials and bare names so sedulously gathered together by dry-as-dust compilers.

In furniture, makers’ names have become household words. Chippendale, Sheraton, Hepplewhite have created styles of their own. Of Sheraton we have personal details piquant enough to add fresh lustre to his satinwood creations. There is the story of the one teacup in the back street of Soho, which was handed to his Scottish apprentice in the little shop whence he issued his religious pamphlets.

In china the personal note is dominant—Josiah Wedgwood with his wooden leg smashing vases at Etruria with “This won’t do for Josiah Wedgwood.” Or Thomas Cookworthy dying of a broken heart in Virginia after his life’s failure at Plymouth. Or the Brothers Elers with their secret underground telephone in Bradwell Wood in Staffordshire.

In silver ware the Elizabethan and the Stuart periods run parallel with furniture; the names of makers are rarely known. But in the eighteenth century besides Paul de Lamerie, Paul Storr, F. Kandler, Peter Archambo, Pierre Platel, and a few others the claim to fame of the individual silversmith has been obliterated by the heart-searchings of{43} collectors for periods, such as the Higher Standard or the style termed “Queen Anne.”

In 1739 the initials were by law altered from the first two letters of the surname to the first letter of the surname and the first letter of the Christian name. In earlier years the maker had a device—a dolphin, a star, a cross, or any other symbol to denote his individual work. Nowadays anonymity is further safeguarded by the Goldsmiths’ Company of London, who admit names of firms. Their printed form runs: “Statement to be made in writing by Manufacturers, Dealers and others, bringing or sending Gold or Silver Plate to be Assayed and Hall-Marked.” Presumably in the old days prentice work passed as that of the master. But the prentice grew older and was allowed to come out into the light. But X & Co., Y & Co., Z & Co. may send their stamps round to smaller and more original men to impress on their work. The public, caring more for the lion, et cetera, than for X, Y, and Z, know no better; as for the real makers the public know nought. But we ask, is this the way to encourage our workers in plate? Syndicates have no bowels of compassion, but assay offices might be supposed to minister to the interests of the art of the worker in precious metals. To kill or to stifle individuality is a crime against Art. If Sheraton had been a silversmith his name would have been unknown.

By law it has been determined that the initials of the maker shall appear on each article of silver assayed; there is nothing in any statute concerning the middle man. It would be interesting to know{44} what steps the various assay offices take to ascertain that the actual maker’s name is upon the pieces to which they affix their official symbols.

To go back to the fourteenth century: there is a fine touch of human nature recorded of one member of the goldsmiths’ guild of London who was found guilty of mals outrages in connexion with his work. He was fined a pipe of wine, and twelve pence a week for one year to a poor member of the company.

Among the human touches left there are fragments recorded which are interesting to collectors. Sir Thomas Gresham, the great London goldsmith in the middle sixteenth century, carried on business in Lombard Street at the sign of the Grasshopper. To this day there is a grasshopper as a weathercock behind the Royal Exchange.

There is Sir Robert Vyner, who made the coronation crown jewels for Charles II, afterwards stolen by Colonel Blood and scattered in the Minories, who was a goldsmith of Lombard Street. He entertained Charles II during his mayorality. Sir Robert, when he had well drunken, grew very familiar with the king, who wished to steal away without ceremony and proceed to his coach. But the mayor pursued him to Guildhall yard, and catching hold of him exclaimed with an oath, “Sir, you shall stay and take t’ other bottle,” and the Merry Monarch, true to his name, with a smile hummed the line of the old song:

“He that is drunk is as great as a king,”

and turned back to finish the bottle. We like this{45} story. A piece of plate with Sir Robert Vyner’s initials of the year 1675 would possess added value for this touch of nature which makes the whole world kin.

On the look-out for links connecting the silversmith with things human we find an interesting shop card of Ellis Gamble, to whom by his own desire young Hogarth was apprenticed and learned to engrave on silver plate. It may be imagined that he was not an “Idle Apprentice,” and his early work with the graver on the flagons and tankards in Mr. Gamble’s shop should stimulate research. It was here that he drew heraldic beasts. His apprenticeship terminated when he was twenty years of age. There is preserved in Hogarth Illustrated (by Ireland) the engraving of the Kendal Arms during his apprenticeship, showing fine design.

We give the inscription on Ellis Gamble’s shop card, which is in a frame, termed by bookplate collectors “Chippendale.” There is a full-length figure of a winged angel standing on a scroll, and the lettering is somewhat crowded below in English and in French:—

“Ellis Gamble, Goldsmith at the Golden Angel in Cranbourn Street, Leicester Fields, Makes Buys and Sells all sorts of Plate, Rings and Jewells, etc.”

An interesting sidelight on makers’ names is afforded by the various copper tokens which they struck, bearing their names and addresses. We append a short list of goldsmiths’ tokens of the seventeenth century. They come from various parts of the country and from Ireland, and readers having{46} seventeenth century silver bearing these initials may be able to identify the maker.

London.
- The Hermitage (Wapping)
  John Mayhew. Gouldsmith His Halfepeny
  Neare the Armitage Bridg. I.M 1666
- West Smithfeild
  Euodias Inman. his halfe Peny
  In Smithfeild Rounds. Gouldsmith.
- Beech Lane (Barbican) (on a farthing).
  Elizabeth Wood (with the Goldsmiths’ arms)
  In Beach Lane. 1656. E. W.
- Seacole Lane (Snow Hill) (on a farthing).
  Samuell Chapell in Seacole Lane, 1671.
  The Goldsmiths’ arms on reverse.
Exeter (on a farthing).
- Samuell Calle (with design of a man smoking)
  Gouldsmith in Exon (with design of covered cup).
Bath (on a farthing).
- Geo. Reve. Goldsmith (with Goldsmiths’ arms)
  In Bath. 1658. G. M. R.
Oxford (on a farthing).
- Will Robinson 1668 (with Goldsmiths’ arms)
  Gouldsmith in Oxon W. M. R.{47}
Dover (on a farthing).
- Willian Keylocke (with the Goldsmiths’ arms)
  In Dover. 1667. W M K
Ireland.
- Dublin (on a penny).
  Io. Partington. Gouldsme. (Arms: on a bend cotise, an eagle).
  Kinges head. Skinner Row, Dublin, 1d.
Kilkenny (on a penny).
- William Keovgh 1d.
  Kilkeny. Goldsmith (with design of a mermaid).

Among the eighteenth century American silversmiths there are some that stand out prominently, and the exhibition of old American plate held at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston in 1906 brought them to notice. There is the work of John Dixwell from 1680 to 1735 who was the son of Colonel John Dixwell, one of the regicides who fled to America in the early years of the Restoration. But the historic punch bowl made by Paul Revere was the pièce de résistance, and was shown together with some forty other of his creations. It was made for the fifteen “Sons of Liberty.” The inscription runs: “To the memory of the glorious Ninety-Two members of the Honourable House of Representatives of the Massachusetts Bay, who, undaunted by the insolent menaces of villains in power, from a strict regard to conscience and the Liberties of their constituents,{48} on the 30th June, 1768, Voted Not To Rescind.”

But Paul Revere, silversmith, has another claim to renown as a patriot. Longfellow, in his Tales of a Wayside Inn, has a poem telling of “Paul Revere’s Ride,” seven years after he fashioned this punch bowl. The story runs that he waited, booted and spurred, on the Charlestown shore for secret news to carry through all the countryside.

... If the British march

By land or sea from the town to night,

Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch

Of the North Church tower as a signal light,—

One, if by land, and two, if by sea.

We know the story of the opening shots at Lexington, the obstinate foolishness of the North Ministry and the deaf ear George III turned to the wisdom of Chatham. Longfellow pays posterity’s tribute to the silversmith:—

A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,

And a word that shall echo for evermore!

For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,

Through all our history, to the last,

In the hour of darkness and peril and need,

The people will waken and listen to hear

The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,

And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

{49}

V. THE HIGHER STANDARD MARK

The higher standard mark has a significance peculiarly its own. By 8 and 9 William III, cap. 8, it was enacted that any person bringing silver plate from January 1696 to November 1697 [2] to any of the Royal Mints, which silver plate be marked as sterling silver with the mark usually employed at the Hall of the Goldsmiths’ Company of London should receive “without tarrying till it be melted and assayed,” five shillings and four pence per ounce.

Section 9 of this chapter of the Act contains in official terms an allusion to the grave scandals that had shaken the commercial stability of the country for many years. “And whereas it might reasonably be suspected that part of the silver coins of the realm had been, by persons regarding their own private gain more than the public good, molten and converted into vessels of silver or other manufactured plate, which crime has been the more easily perpetrated by them, inasmuch as the goldsmiths or other workers of plate by the former laws and statutes of the realm were not obliged to make their plate of finer silver than the sterling or standard ordained for the monies of the realm,” it was enacted that from and after 25th March 1697 no silver plate should be made that was not of higher standard than the coin of the realm. It was laid down that the legal marks on all silver were to be the maker’s mark, expressed by the two first letters of his surname, and that the marks of the assay offices should be for this new plate the lion’s head{50} erased and “the figure of a woman commonly called Britannia” in lieu of the former marks of the leopard’s head and the lion passant. In addition to this the date mark was to be stamped to show in what year the plate was made. In this Act of 1696 it will be observed that the mention of the leopard’s head and the lion passant include London marks only. As the manufacture of silver plate of the old standard was illegal after the passing of this Act and the use of the old marks was equally illegal, it would appear that the provincial assay offices were precluded from stamping silver.

That this appears to be the case is suggested by the reappointment of the provincial offices in 1700. York, Exeter, Bristol, Chester, and Norwich, at which cities mints had been opened for the coinage of the new silver, were reappointed by 12 William, cap. 4, to assay and mark silver plate as heretofore. The new standard was to be observed. The marks to be employed were the maker’s mark, the lion’s head erased, the figure of Britannia, the city mark, and the date letter, “a variable Roman letter,” which latter provision was not then, and has not since, been observed, as other types have been used.

From 25th March, 1697, till 1700 no plate was therefore assayed at any of the provincial centres.

In 1702 the town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne was appointed as an assay town with similar privileges and restrictions as in the above-mentioned cities.

The old standard of silver was ·925, that is in every thousand parts only 75 were to be of alloy. The new standard was ·959, that is only 41 parts of alloy could{51} be legally used. This raised the standard of silver plate above that of the coin of the realm.

The new standard was the only legal standard for silver plate from March 1697 till 1720, when the old standard was revived and the higher standard marks of the Britannia and the lion’s head erased were no longer compulsory. Silver plate then dropped to the same fineness as the coin of the realm. But if silversmiths desired to make silver of this higher standard they could do so, and such silver plate would receive the stamps at the assay offices, of the Britannia and the lion’s head erased.

It is thus shown that the dates when silver plate must compulsorily bear the Higher Standard marks are between the years 1697 and 1720. The following note will be useful to collectors.

A piece of silver marked with the figure of Britannia and the lion’s head erased may be an example falling under any of the following heads:—

1. Assayed in London between 1697 and 1700, when London was the only office assaying silver plate. (It was illegal in England to make silver plate of a lower standard between 1697 and 1720.)

2. Assayed in London between 1701 and 1720.

3. Assayed at Chester, Exeter, York, and Norwich, between 1701 and 1720.

4. Assayed at Newcastle from 1702 to 1720.

5. Assayed at any of the assay offices (except Dublin; no Higher Standard silver being made in Ireland) after 1720 to the present day. Although such silver plate of the Higher Standard has not since been compulsory by law since 1720.

{52}

The Britannia period is an intricate period in the study of silver plate, but the history underlying the Acts which governed the hall-marking at this period should appeal to the collector who wishes to endow his plate with historic interest. Without digressing too widely into economic questions which threatened to paralyse commerce and to destroy the allegiance to William III, it is of essential interest to the collector of old silver plate to realize the conditions which rendered the Higher Standard Mark of the Britannia and the lion’s head erased necessary to prevent financial disasters of considerable magnitude. The plate closet provides the historian with many of his facts. It was in the days of Charles I that the loyalists melted down their plate to be converted into coin of the realm. It was in William’s day that clippers of coins provided silver for the silversmith to fashion into his pleasing shapes. At what cost will be shown.

Till the reign of Charles II our coin had been struck by a process as old as the thirteenth century. The metal was shaped with shears and stamped by the hammer. The inexactitude of such coinage became the opportunity for the clipper of coins. A mill was set up at the Tower of London which was worked by horses and superseded the human hand. The coins were exactly circular, their edges were inscribed with a legend, and clipping was thereby made apparently impossible. But the hammered coins and the milled coins were current together. The result was, as it always is, that the light and poorer coin drove the better one out of the current{53} circulation. The milled crown new from the mint became more valuable for shipment abroad or for use in the crucible.

Coiners grew and multiplied because the damaged and defaced coins could be more easily imitated. Hundreds of wretched persons were dragged up Holborn Hill, and in spite of flogging, branding, and hanging, the trade of the coin clipper was easier than highway robbery, and as fortunes were to be made those who followed that avocation took the risks, as did smugglers. It was a dangerous occupation. Seven men were hanged one morning and a woman branded, but this did not deter the hundreds who were undetected. One clipper who was caught offered £6,000 for a pardon, which was rejected, but the news gave a stimulus to the industry. The Government of the day became alarmed at the state of things, which grew from bad to worse. A sum of £57,200 of hammered money paid into the Exchequer was tested by the officials. It should have weighed above 220,000 ounces; it weighed under 114,000 ounces. (Lowndes’ Essay for the Amendment of the Silver Coins, 1695.) A Quaker who came from the North journeyed southwards, and his diary shows that as he travelled towards London the innkeepers were astonished at the full and heavy weight of the half-crowns he offered. They asked where such money could be found. The guinea which he purchased at Lancaster for twenty-two shillings bore a different value at every stage. In London it was worth thirty shillings, and would have been worth more had not the Government fixed this as the highest at which{54} gold should be received in payment of taxes. The Memoirs of this Quaker were published in the Manchester Guardian some thirty years ago.

It may readily be imagined that such a state of things began to cripple trade. Merchants stipulated as to the quality of the coin in which they were to be paid. “The labourer found that the bit of metal which, when he received it, was called a shilling, would hardly, when he wanted to purchase a pot of beer or a loaf of rye bread, go as far as sixpence.” Tonson the bookseller sends Dryden forty brass shillings. Another time he paid the poet in silver pieces that were so bad that they could not be passed.

The Government still believed in penalties, and hoped that drastic punishment would stop the clipping of the hammered coin and the melting and export of the new milled coin. A clipper who informed against two other clippers was pardoned. Any one informing against a clipper had a reward of forty pounds. Whoever was found in the possession of silver clippings, filings, or parings should be burned in the cheek with a red-hot iron. Officers were empowered to search for bullion, and the onus of proof as to its origin was thrown on the possessors, or failing this they were fined heavily. But all in vain were these drastic measures; clipping still continued in defiance of all penal laws. Colley Cibber in his Love’s Last Shift, or the Fool in Fashion, has a hit at the debased state of the coinage. A gay cynic says, “Virtue is as much debased as our money: and, in faith, Dei Gratia is as hard to be found in a girl of sixteen as round the brim of an old shilling.”

{55}

This is not the place to enumerate the many foolish schemes that were propounded, some too costly, some unjust, some hazardous.

Locke and Newton brought their minds to bear on the subtleties of the question, and adopted the ideas of Dudley North, who died in 1693. His tract on the restoration of the currency is practically the same as that subsequently adopted.

William Lowndes, Secretary of the Treasury, Member of Parliament for the borough of Seaford, “a most respectable and industrious public servant,” as Lord Macaulay terms him, was incapable of rising above the details of his office in order to cope with economic principles. “He was not in the least aware that a piece of metal with the King’s head on it was a commodity of which the price was governed by the same laws which govern the price of metal fashioned into a spoon or a buckle, and that it was no more in the power of Parliament to make the kingdom richer by calling a crown a pound than to make the kingdom larger by calling a furlong a mile. He seriously believed, incredible as it may seem, that if the ounce of silver were divided into seven shillings instead of five, foreign nations would sell us their wines and their silks for a smaller number of ounces.”

Happily Lowndes was completely refuted by Locke in his Further Considerations Concerning the Raising the Value of Money, 1695.

Locke recommended what Dudley North had advised, namely, that the King should issue a proclamation declaring hammered money should pass only by weight. What searching, branding, fining, burning,{56} and hanging had failed to do would have been accomplished at once. The clipping of the hammered coin and the melting of the new milled coin to be made into silver plate would have ceased. But it had one objection. The loss would fall on the individual. Those in whose hands the clipped coin happened to be at a particular moment would bear the loss. But the loss in equity should be borne by the State which had allowed such evils to go unchecked.

It was suggested to remedy this that all clipped coin after a certain date would be exchanged for good coin at the mint. But it was soon realized that this would make clipping more profitable than ever.

A real remedy was devised but unhappily it fell through. A proclamation was to be prepared with great secrecy, and published simultaneously in all parts of the kingdom. This was to declare hammered coin should thenceforth only pass by weight. Every possessor of such coin could within three days deliver it in a sealed packet to the local authorities to be weighed and would receive a promissory note to receive from the Treasury the difference between the actual quantity of silver the pieces contained and the quantity they should have contained.

Anxious days followed in Parliament, but it was determined the public should bear the loss on the clipped coins. It was laid down that a time should be fixed when no clipped money should pass, except in payments to the Government, and that a later time should be fixed after which no clipped{57} money should pass at all. The 4th of May, 1696, was named as the date on which the Government would cease to receive clipped money in payment of taxes.

Ten furnaces were erected in a garden behind the Treasury, which was then a part of Whitehall, and which lay between the Banqueting House and the river. Every day huge heaps of clipped and unrecognizable coins were here turned into ingots of silver and were sent off to the Mint at the Tower (L’Hermitage, January 14-24, 1696).

The scene may readily be imagined. The second of May 1696 had been fixed by Parliament as the last day in which the crowns, half-crowns, and shillings were to be received in payment of taxes for face value. The guards had to be called in to keep order. The Exchequer was besieged by a vast multitude from dawn to midnight. The Act provided that the money was to be brought in by before the 4th of May. The 3rd was a Sunday, therefore Saturday, the 2nd of May, was actually the last day.

During the next few months, as the issues of the new coinage were unduly slow, the tension was very great. The upper classes lived on credit. “Money exceeding scarce, so that none was paid or received: but all was on trust” (Evelyn’s Diary, May 13th). “Want of current money for smallest concerns even for daily provisions in the markets.” (June 11th, Evelyn’s Diary.)

By about August 1696, signs of prosperity began to be observed after a very trying time owing to the scarcity of silver.

{58}

Undoubtedly it was a very anxious period for the Government. Malcontents stirred up the populace and tumults occurred in various parts of the country. Jacobite tracts were published advocating violent measures. William had strained his private credit in Holland to procure bread for the Army. But the crisis was weathered and the coinage question was settled.

It hardly needs an apology from the author to bring these facts tersely together before the reader who is interested in old English silver. The figure of Britannia and the lion’s head erased belong to this troublous period. They come as a corollary to the coinage question, and they should provide the collector with food for thought whenever he sees them stamped upon silver in his possession. The standard of silver plate was raised as a further safeguard, in order that the clippers should have no incentive to melt down the new coinage.

From 1697 to 1720 the silver plate, being compulsorily by law of a higher standard than the coin of the realm, stood as a safeguard against the return to clipping.

The Britannia standard, therefore, to collectors should be something more than rare. It should induce reflective thought as to the successive stages the troublous disputations, the suggested remedies, and the awful punishments which came as a prelude to the establishment of this Higher Standard.

At a much later period the figure of Britannia was stamped upon silver plate, but the practice was not very extensive, and the Britannia stamp is used without{59} the accompanying lion’s head erased. The date when this mark appears is at a period subsequent to 1784 and relates to the drawback or exemption from duty on silver plate exported. (See the “Duty Mark,” p. 61.)

{60}

VI. THE DUTY MARK

In regard to duty on silver plate, it was first imposed in England and in Scotland in 1719, when the old silver standard was revived. The duty was fixed at 6d. per ounce. Later by 3 Geo. II, in 1730, the duty was imposed on silver plate assayed in Ireland, and at this date the figure of Hibernia was used to denote that duty had been paid to the king. In 1784, by 24 Geo. III, cap. 53, a duty of 6d. per ounce was levied. This applied to England and Scotland, and it was enacted that, in addition to the other marks formerly employed by the makers and assay offices, the new mark of the king’s head should be stamped on every piece of silver plate on which duty has been paid. By another section of this Act it was a felony punishable by death to use any counterfeit stamp contrary to law. By a later Act, 55 Geo. III, in 1815, the counterfeiting the king’s head duty mark was punishable by death; and this was only a hundred years ago. The duty on silver plate was now 1s. 6d. per ounce.

From 1784, therefore, on English and Scottish silver the duty mark of the head of the reigning sovereign appears on all silver plate, stamped in an oval escutcheon.

In regard to the duty mark on Irish plate, it was not until 1807 by 47 Geo. III that the stamp of the king’s head, or that of the reigning sovereign was added to the other marks to denote that duty had been paid to the king. The old mark{61} of Hibernia was allowed to remain; originally it was a duty mark, but it may be now regarded as the hall-mark of Dublin.

The various sovereigns’ heads were used down to 1890, when the duty was discontinued and the mark abolished.

In connexion with these duty marks the Act of 1784 has a section which has an interesting provision, and those collectors who may happen to find a figure of Britannia on a piece of silver without its companion mark of the lion’s head erased may be puzzled as to the reason of the omission. First it does not denote that the silver plate was of the higher standard. It was a mark stamped on silver which was exported. By the above Act duty was not charged on silver exported, and in order to prevent any of this plate being taken abroad for a short time only, and then landed in this country to be sold here without the duty having been paid, it was stamped with the figure of Britannia.

The following are the Duty Marks used:—

Ireland			1730 to 1807	Figure of Hibernia.
England and Scotland			1784 to 1820	Head of George III.
Ireland			1807 to 1820	do.	do.
England, Scotland, and Ireland			1821 to 1830	Head of George IV.
	do.	do.	1831 to 1836	Head of William IV.
	do.	do.	1837 to 1890	Head of Victoria.	Duty abolished 1890.

The illustrations of these duty marks are shown in the Table (p. 357).

{62}

VII. THE FOREIGN MARK

The Foreign Mark is a protective measure. A great amount of foreign wrought plate had found its way into this country and was being sold by dealers without sending it to the assay office. It was of a lower standard than would have been passed by the assay offices, that is to say it was not sterling silver as understood in this country, viz. 925 parts silver in every thousand parts of metal—that is, admitting only 75 parts of alloy in every thousand. In 1842 an Act was passed, 5 and 6 Vic., which enacted that no silver plate which had not been wrought in England, Scotland, or Ireland was to be sold in these countries unless it had first been assayed in the same manner as silver wrought in Great Britain and Ireland. But no provision was made that such foreign silver should bear an additional stamp, nor does it seem that the Act was very much put into operation. The provisions seem to have been evaded till 1867, when by 30 and 31 Vic. all imported plate had to be marked with letter F in an oval escutcheon, denoting it was of foreign manufacture, although it had passed the tests and otherwise had the stamps of British or Irish assay offices upon it.

This is not very satisfactory, although the practice has now been altered. A purchaser gets a piece of silver plate with the lion and the leopard’s head on it, and this to the tyro denotes quality, and allays any fears he may have as to its origin. He may innocently imagine he is supporting home industries, not{63} knowing what the meaning of the letter F may be at the end of the row of symbols.

This foreign mark, illustrated in Table, p. 357, was used from 1876 to 1904.

It seems unfair to British manufacturers that foreign silver is assayed here for competitive sale with home manufactured plate; it bears the time-honoured symbols that have been used in this country for four hundred years. There is also the possibility that some fraudulent dealer may remove the F, and straightway the piece becomes British. It was not in the public interest that such a loose state of things should continue.

By the Hall Marking of Foreign Plate Act (4 Edw. VII. c. 6), Foreign silver plate was marked by the Assay Offices with the following marks in addition to the Standard Mark and the Date Letters. In 1906, by Order in Council, certain alterations were made in the London, Sheffield, Glasgow and Dublin marks on Foreign plate assayed.

From 1904.	Birmingham.	Chester.	Edinburgh.	Decimal equivalent of standard value of the silver.
From 1904 to 1906.	London.	Sheffield.	Glasgow.	Dublin.
From 1906.	London.	Sheffield.	Glasgow.	Dublin.

{69}

CHAPTER II

ECCLESIASTICAL PLATE

The Chalice, Elizabethan forms, with cover for use as paten—The destruction of silver plate at the Reformation—The Exeter style of chalice—The sacramental flagon—The Communion Cup—Specimens of patens.

In regard to sacred vessels in use in this country before the Reformation it is noteworthy that in design they cling to a national form and differ very considerably from those used in early mediæval days or at the present time in the Roman Catholic Church.

Prior to the Reformation the plate found on the altar for the celebration of the Holy Sacrament consisted of a chalice, a paten, two cruets to contain wine and water for consecration, which were really two ewers with lids of small size, and the pyx in which the Eucharist was reserved.

The chalice consisted of three parts: the cup or bowl, the stem which in its middle swelled out into a bulb called the knop, for the convenience of holding it, and the foot.

The paten was a small salver slightly sunk in the middle like an ordinary plate.

{70}

Henry VIII in his spoliation of the monasteries, their lands and their gold and silver plate, set the pace which was continued under Edward VI. No stone was left unturned to stamp out all traces of the old religion. It is remarkable that so much has escaped the blind fury that seized the reformers in their lust for destruction. Whole libraries were destroyed; illuminated books were consigned to the flames as the work of the devil. Stained glass windows, carved woodwork with figures of saints, brasses with religious emblems, all fell beneath the ruthless hand of the iconoclastic Puritan.

“At Sunbury we brake down ten mighty great angels in glass, at Barham brake down the twelve apostles in the chancel, and six superstitious pictures more there: and eight in the church, one a lamb with a cross on the back: and digged down the steps and took up four superstitious inscriptions in brass.” So writes one Dowsing, a fanatic, in a diary he kept of his doings, where he and his myrmidons scoured a hundred and fifty parishes. Bishop Hall of Norwich saved his windows by taking out the heads of the figures.

With such religious fervour abroad it can well be imagined that the altar vessels, the fine chalices and other ecclesiastical plate, came under the ban that had been pronounced against relics of a Church which, whatever may have been its dogmas, had always encouraged the fine arts and employed the genius of the craftsmen in creating edifices which stand among the noblest of man’s handiwork and in embellishing them with decorations as spiritual as the brain of the artist could conceive.

{71}

ELIZABETHAN CHALICE AND COVER.

Parcel-gilt. Inscription, “St. Martin’s in Exon.” London hall-mark, 1573.

(In possession of Parish of St. Martin’s, Exeter.)

CHARLES I CHALICE AND COVER.

Silver-gilt. Inscription, “St. Petrox in Oxon.” Exeter hall-mark, 1640.

(Marks illustrated p. 391.)

(In possession of Parish of St. Petrock, Exeter.)

{73}

It is not surprising to find the commissioners appointed by Edward VI making as exhaustive an inquiry throughout the land as the valuers of a modern Chancellor of the Exchequer. They seized all the plate in the churches with the exception of chalices and patens, and these they weeded out if they considered the parish too small to have more than one or two. Hence it is rare to find pre-Reformation ecclesiastical plate, even chalices and patens, because the Church authorities preferred to melt it down and use the money for other purposes than to have it confiscated.

In 1547 by 1 Edward VI it was enacted that communion in both kinds should be administered to the laity. The old form of chalice and paten remained for a time, as even the Reformation with all its fury could not and did not wholly uproot all the most sacred and deeply seated ritual in connexion with religious observances. The subject of the change in the form of the chalice with its inverted cup and the introduction of the severer form of the open communion cup and the flagon, is a study in ecclesiastical and political history which cannot be further pursued here.

In general it may be said that the old forms of chalice are not frequently met with, and have been carefully guarded by religious bodies, possibly having to be hidden. The examples now extant are usually found in cathedral cities and in the custody of corporate bodies or Church authorities. We are fortunate in being able to reproduce illustrations of some fine Exeter examples exhibiting exquisite symmetry and characteristic ornamentation.

{74}

The paten, it should be observed, was made to serve as a cover for the communion cup, a style which appears to have been general in Elizabeth’s day, and the old pre-Reformation paten was discarded by ecclesiastical law.

In the illustration given (p. 67) of a chalice and cover this form is seen. The specimen is silver-gilt of the style known as the Exeter pattern. The bowl is conical in shape with engraved foliated ornament. The knop is fluted and the foot is in similar style. The inscription is “St. Petrox, Exon,” and the piece is still in the possession of the parish of St. Petrock, Exeter. The maker is I. Ions, and the piece bears the Exeter hall-mark for the year 1572, the year of the massacre of St. Bartholomew.

The chalice and cover illustrated on the same page is another fine example of the Exeter pattern, with inscription on cover “The Paryshe of Trynitye in the yeare of our Lorde 1575.” The maker is I. Ions and the Exeter date mark 1575. The marks of this piece are illustrated page 391.

Another Elizabethan chalice and cover bears the London hall-mark of 1573. It is parcel gilt, has a straight bowl with slight lip, and engraved foliated bands. Its inscription is “St. Martin’s in Exon.” This is illustrated on page 71 together with a Charles I chalice and cover made by J. R. Radcliff and bearing the Exeter mark of 1640, the date when Strafford was impeached and two years before the outbreak of the Civil War. The illustration shows the mark on the middle of the bowl, with the maker{77}’s name in full between the two bands of floriated decoration.

CHARLES II CUP.

Silver-gilt. London hall-mark, 1660. (Marks illustrated p. 369.)

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

WILLIAM III FLAGONS.

London hall-mark, 1692. Maker’s mark, I.Y.

(In possession of Parish of St. Martin’s, Exeter.)

An interesting Charles II cup, silver-gilt, is illustrated page 75. The maker’s mark is H. G. and the date letter is a black-letter capital , indicating the year 1660. The illustration shows the position of the marks and the irregular manner in which they were stamped at that period. The marks are illustrated on page 369. Cups such as this have sometimes had portions added to them, converting them into ewers with curved spout and large handle. There is a piece among the corporation plate at York which suggests such an alteration. In the days of Charles II the puritanic form of the few pieces of plate then remaining offended the new spirit of gaiety. Cromwell’s cavalry had stabled their horses in cathedrals; with the Restoration, communion cups were converted into vessels for less sacred use.

Illustrated on the same page are two William III flagons, with date letter for 1692, and maker’s mark I. Y. These are in the possession of the parish of St. Martin’s, Exeter. These flagons were wrought in London in the fateful year when Marlborough was dismissed from his office on suspicion of high treason, when Louis XIV espoused the cause of the exiled James and prepared to invade England. By the naval victory of La Hogue the supremacy of the seas was gained. On land the French took Namur, but although William was defeated he prevented the French from entering Brussels. All these pieces of news filtered through to London in the days when the craftsman was patiently hammering these flagons{78} and twisting the handles and fashioning the thumb-pieces. To-day to the curious and pensive mind the row of stamped symbols recalls the England of William.

Examples of the patens later in use are shown on page 79. The two Charles II pieces are on feet, and it will be seen that they are ornamented with rope-pattern borders. They are inscribed “St. Martin’s in Exeter.” The London date letter is for 1680, and the maker’s mark is E. G. Between them stands a Queen Anne lavabo bowl with the Exeter mark for 1702, the maker being John Elston.

A Queen Anne paten is illustrated beneath on the same page. The Exeter date mark is for 1714, and the maker is Pentecost Symonds. The illustration shows in what position the marks are placed, and they are illustrated on page 391.

A remarkable communion cup and cover of small size is illustrated on page 81. This is a George II specimen and is unique. It bears the Exeter mark for 1729, and the maker is James Strong. The stem of this cup is in baluster form of fine proportions. The cover is remarkable, being intended, when removed, for use as a flat paten. In addition to the usual central button it has four small additional feet. It was intended for the use of the sick, hence its smaller size. Altogether it is a most remarkable piece. It has an inscription which runs: “Deo Christo et Ecclesiae St. Martini Exon in usu infirmorum.” The marks on it are given under the illustration.

{79}

CHARLES II PATENS.

London, 1680. Maker, E. G.

QUEEN ANNE LAVABO BOWL.

Exeter, 1702. Maker John Elston.

(In possession of Parish of St. Martin’s, Exeter.)

QUEEN ANNE PATEN.

Exeter hall-mark, 1714. Maker, Pentecost Symonds.

(Marks illustrated p. 391.)

(By courtesy of Messrs. Ellett Lake & Son, Exeter.)

{81}

SMALL COMMUNION CUP AND COVER. GEORGE II.

Exeter hall-mark, 1729. Maker, James Strong. (Marks are illustrated above.)

(In possession of Parish of St. Martin’s, Exeter.)

{83}

III

THE MAZER
THE STANDING CUP
THE FLAGON
THE TANKARD
THE BEAKER
THE WINE CUP
THE PUNCH-BOWL

{85}

CHAPTER III

THE MAZER, THE STANDING CUP, THE FLAGON, THE TANKARD, THE BEAKER, THE WINE CUP, THE PUNCH-BOWL

The Mazer, the fifteenth-century precursor of the punch-bowl—Some historic Standing Cups (the Leigh Cup, 1499)—Stoneware jugs with silver mounts and covers—The seventeenth century—The Pepys Standing Cup—Elizabethan flagons—Seventeenth-century Tankards—The Stuart Beaker—Stuart wine cups—The “Monteith” form punch-bowl of the eighteenth century.

In this chapter it will be seen that a survey is made of the drinking vessels of silver plate in use during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. With the advent of coffee and tea, silver plate found a newer field, and the coffee-pots, tea-pots, and tea-caddies of the eighteenth century are dealt with in another chapter.

During the period prior to the general use of glass, metals were employed for domestic plate. Pewter, being less costly, was more used than silver plate, which was confined to the wealthier classes; and for those of lower degree the black-jack and the “old leather bottel” sufficed. Faience from the Low Countries and from Cologne early found its way{86} to this country. The Bellarmine jugs, large in capacity and strongly made of gres de Flandres stoneware, were possibly much in demand for serving sack and beer and other liquors consumed in large quantities. It is the tendency of all simple objects to become ornate. The earliest plain horn cups used by the herdsman and the simples developed into silver-mounted richly-chased drinking horns for use at the castle. Of this class is the drinking horn belonging to Lord Cawdor, at Golden Grove, with silver mounts supported by silver dragon and greyhound, which has a history dating from the days of Richard III.

The wooden bowl, as we see in the mazer, became enriched with costly mounts. These additions rarely added to the utility of the vessel, but they denote its elevation into usage by more wealthy people. The plain grey or mottled and excellently potted stoneware jug, the like of which Mistress Quickly must have used to pour out the canary of Falstaff and Bardolf and the thirsty set of tapsters who surrounded the fat knight, was common enough in the early sixteenth century. But in Elizabeth’s day it added luxurious appendages to itself in the shape of silver or silver-gilt rim and lid and bands and foot.

MAZER, OF MAPLE WOOD.

Mounted in silver-gilt, ornamented with quatrefoil belts. Inscription on boss, “A Gift to the Parish of St. Petrock, 1490.”

INTERIOR OF MAZER, SHOWING INSCRIPTION.

(In possession of Parish of St. Petrock, Exeter.)

The mazer, a wooden vessel in form like the more modern punch-bowl, mounted in silver, is the earliest type of our domestic plate. These bowls were ornamented with silver bands and silver rims, and in some cases there was a silver circular plate or boss in the centre of the vessel inside. The example we illustrate is mounted in silver-gilt with quatrefoil{89} belts. It has an inscription on the boss, “A Gift to the Parish of St. Petrock, 1490.” The wood of these mazers was usually maple, and the name is supposed to be derived from the British word masarm (maple). The Dutch word maeser means a knot of maple wood. Spenser in the sixteenth century has the lines:

Then, lo! Perigot, the pledge which I plight,

A mazer ywrought of the maple ware,

Wherein is enchased many a fair fight

Of bears and tigers that make fierce war.

Among the earliest of drinking vessels of the Middle Ages this form of the broad bowl followed the earlier horn drinking cup. Mazers were not made after the sixteenth century. The form was not confined to England, for Sir Walter Scott, in his “Lord of the Isles,” has the couplet:

Bring hither, he said, the mazers four

My noble fathers loved of yore.

In regard to some of the prices paid for mazers at auction in London, the following may convey an idea as to rarity. In 1903 a fifteenth-century mazer realized £140. In 1902 a sixteenth-century example brought £170. In 1905 a mazer dated 1527 sold for £500, but in 1908 one dated 1534 fetched the colossal price of £2,300. Certainly this is the highest price paid for maplewood. If the bowl had been all silver, and had been sold by the ounce, the sum paid would have been remarkable. But collectors are no respecters of persons, and as a rarity a mazer makes an appeal which it cannot do as a work of art.

{90}

The specimens remaining after centuries of vandalism which have come down to us from the early days differ in character. The mazer is reminiscent of Scandinavian drinking customs. To this day the Dane in drinking your health says “Scol.” Etymologists with fine imagination have linked this with skull, and sought to infer that the old Norsemen drank out of skulls. It is a myth as old as the upas-tree. Dekker in his Wonder of a Kingdom says:

Would I had ten thousand soldiers’ heads,

Their skulls set all in silver, to drink healths

To his confusion first invented war.

We may agree with the sentiment, and we could fittingly drink confusion to a modern intriguer to like end, but, for all that, the derivation is wrong. The scol of the Dane has reference to little wooden spoons used with the bowl to ladle out the liquor, much in the same manner as the punch ladle of many centuries later performed the same service. The word scull, the oar of a shallop, is the same word. Byron, wishing to pose as a wicked person, gathered a crowd of wayward spirits at Newstead who drank out of a skull.

Some Historic Standing Cups

Contemporary with the mazers are magnificent standing cups and covers, such as the “Anathema” Cup, of the date 1481, at Pembroke College, Cambridge, or the Lynn Cup, a century earlier, in possession of the corporation of King’s Lynn. It must be remembered in the contemplation of our art treasures,{93} and more especially the plate that is left to us, that the data upon which we may form conclusions are very slender. Happily much that is superlative is left to us, unscathed through centuries of civil war and plunderings and meltings-down; but often two pieces of the same period represent extreme types. One may be a merely ordinary common vessel and the other may be of most exquisite and beautiful work, which reached the summit of excellence even in its own day. Comparisons are odious. But it is as though in five centuries hence all else were swept aside and all that the twenty-fifth century had upon which to pass judgment on the eighteenth century potter were sundry ornate Wedgwood vases and certain crude cottage figures.

THE LEIGH CUP AND COVER.

With London hall-mark for 1499. Richly ornamented in Gothic style. Having inscription on bands of blue enamel in letters of silver. The second earliest cup known with a hall-mark.

(See description p. 93.)

(By courteous permission of the Mercers’ Company.)

By the courtesy of the Mercers’ Company an illustration of the famous Leigh Standing Cup and cover is here produced. The date of this is 1499. The vessel is ornamented with raised crossed bands, and in the panels formed by their intersection are alternate heads of maidens and flagons, which are the badges of the company. The foot rests on three miniature flagons, and has a deep chased border with a pierced trefoil enrichment. On the cover are the arms of the City of London and the company. The cover is surmounted by a maiden seated, with an unicorn reclining in her lap, the word “Desyer” on its side. Round the cover and cup are bands of blue enamel, with letters of silver, with the following inscription:

To Ellect the Master of the Mercerie hither am I sent

And by Sir Thomas Legh for the same entent.

{94}

This specimen exhibits the Gothic style, and this is the second earliest cup known with a hall-mark. The “Anathema” Cup bears the London hall-mark for 1481. The antiquity of these early cups illuminate the field of collecting. The Leigh Cup is contemporary with the magnificent chapel of Henry VII at Westminster Abbey. Here is a work of art wrought by the silversmith only two years after John Cabot made his first voyage to the mainland of America, and on the heels of the discovery of the sea route to India by Vasco da Gama.

The standing cup and cover carries with it rites and ceremonies that have been retained to the present day by all those corporations and companies and clubs who have a ritual extending into the past. It is not always easy to give the exact reason why customs are still punctiliously observed. To doff one’s hat to a friend or a superior is an act which has a long history. To take off one’s casque of armour was to become at once unprotected from the sword-cut. One can imagine two knights meeting showing this confidence in each other’s honour in removing their casques. Similarly in the taking of wine the observances of to-day in regard to the loving-cup have equally sound reasons to support them, as being a symbolic continuance of similar actions of the past when their meaning was more definitely prosaic than it is now.

ELIZABETHAN CUP AND COVER.

1585.

Silver-gilt. Height 10¹/₄ in.

ELIZABETHAN STONEWARE JUG.

c. 1570.

With silver-mounted cover and foot.

(In possession of A. S. M. Smedley, Esq.)

(Photographs by courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

There are many recorded instances where treacherous foes have stabbed a guest when in the act of drinking. It is not difficult to realize the sequel and the necessity for the usage. When one man{97} drank, his comrade stood by his side with dagger ready to defend his friend from treachery. The custom to-day at civic banquets and in old clubs in regard to the loving-cup passed round is explained. There are always three standing. Two face each other and the third stands behind the person drinking as a safeguard against perfidy.

Poison and the fear of death were always prominently before our ancestors in the Middle Ages. The wine cup was an easy means in perpetrating revenge; in consequence crystal goblets, which were supposed to split or change colour when poison was present, were much in vogue.

There were various forms of standing cups. The craftsman expended his skill and invention in producing novelties. It thus happens that these creations exhibit the silversmith’s cunning at its best.

A very interesting cup and cover is that known as the “Westbury.” It is a fine example of the Elizabethan silversmith’s work, and is silver-gilt. It is, as is shown in the illustration, in the form of an acorn on a stem with flattened knob, and spreading moulded base, with turned knob to the cover. The cup of the acorn is cleverly suggested by a series of stamped rings. This cup has an inscription which runs:

Given to the Church of Westbury by Collonel Waucklen and Mary Contes of Malbrou. 1671.

On the cover are the initials of the donors, T. W. and M. M.

{98}

According to Hoare’s Wiltshire, and Cockayne’s Complete Peerage, Extinct and Dormant, Mary, widow of the second Earl of Marlborough, was married to one Thomas Waucklen, son of a blacksmith.

This is not too great a demand on our credulity, as a cause de célèbre in the courts disclosed the fact only a few years ago that a countess was married to the son of a coachman who had posed as a prince. We do not know in what manner Colonel Waucklen gained his military title. He possibly may during the “late wars” have emulated Hudibras,

When civil dudgeons first grew high,

And out he rode a-colonelling.

But scandal there is which has settled heavily on the cup and its donors. It is stated that at the time of its gift to the church of Westbury, Mary the Countess had been dead a year and was buried in a turnip field. This Elizabethan cup made its public appearance in the middle of the reign of Charles II, and the said inscription would seem to have been placed upon it by the “Collonel” to screen the fact that his wife was dead. It would appear to have been for a long time in domestic use before it was handed over to the custody of the Church. It bears the London hall-mark for 1585.

PEPYS STANDING CUP AND COVER. c. 1677.

Height 23 in.

With inscription in shield at base, “Samuel Pepys. Admiralitati Angl: Secretis & Societ: Pannif: Lond: Mr. An. MDCLXXVII.”

(By courtesy of the Company of Clothworkers.)

The Stoneware Jug

As has already been said, the stoneware vessels of the Low Countries came into England and were in common use in the time of Elizabeth. Fine examples of mottled “tiger ware” with silver mounts were evidently used by more luxurious{101} possessors, and such specimens bring enormous prices under the hammer. The celebrated West Malling Elizabethan jug sold at Christie’s, in 1903, for £1,522. This example was described as Fulham delft or stoneware, splashed purple, orange, green, and other colours, in the style of the old Chinese, and mounted with neck-band, handle mount, body-straps, foot and cover, of silver-gilt. It has the London hall-mark of 1581, the year after Drake returned in the Golden Hind from his voyage around the world. The maker’s mark is a fleur-de-lis stamped in intaglio, repeated on cover, neck-band, and foot. Its height is 9¹/₂ inches. The weight of silver straps is only 9 oz. “It may have been used for sacred purposes,” says one of the journalistic critics, who marvelled at the price, “but without doubt is nothing more than an old sack-pot.”

We illustrate an example with silver-mounted cover and foot, about 1570 in date, which shows the type of jugs of Tudor days of this class.

There are many examples of this kind of tankard. The Vintners’ Company has one of delft mounted in silver-gilt with cover with inscription, “Think and Thank,” and “Thank David Gitting for this.” It bears a date 1563. The dates of most of the specimens of this class of stoneware or delft flagon range from about 1560 to about 1595.

The Pepys Standing Cup and Cover

In continuing the examination of loving-cups the comparison can be made between the early ornate Gothic type exemplified in the Leigh cup; the{102} restrained and solid piece of craftsmanship in the Westbury cup; and the applied style of decoration, French in character, found in pieces from about 1670 for the next ten years or so. The Pepys cup is about 1677, and typifies this last period. There is among the York Corporation plate a silver-gilt cup, 17¹/₂ inches high, with cover surmounted by a lion couchant. This “Turner” cup has the inscription: “Ion̄es Turner serviens ad legem Civitatis Eborū Recordator hoc Majori et Communitati ejus de gratitudinis ergo dedit, 1679.” The hall-mark is London, 1679. There is a resemblance in this cup to the Pepys cup: it is finely decorated with acanthus leaves. In 1893 a copy of the Turner cup, with the lion transformed into the lion of England, and embellished with shields of the various Dukes of York, was presented to His Majesty King George by the citizens of York on the occasion of his marriage.

In 1677 Samuel Pepys was elected Master of the Clothworkers’ Company, to whom he presented this cup (illustrated), which is still used at their dinners.

Its description is as follows: Standing cup and cover, parcel gilt. Deep plain band round rim, below which is a chased laurel wreath. The rest of the cup is overlaid with an outer framework of pierced and embossed work of ornate character, which is not gilt. The design embraces foliated scrolls with griffin, and included are teazles and two rams, symbols of the Clothworkers’ Company. The cover is surmounted by a ram.

The cup bears an inscription: “Samuel Pepys Admiralitati Angl: Secretis & Societ: Pannif:{103} Lond: Mr. An. MDCLXXVII,” and a monogram S. P., together with the arms of Pepys.

This piece belongs to the Charles II period, and is typical of the characteristic style of applied decoration, undoubtedly of French origin. This cup has the maker’s mark [3] T G or J G interlaced, and he evidently was an English craftsman working during the latter half of the Charles II period and during the short reign of James II. The vogue then disappeared.

English silver plate at the end of the seventeenth century is worthy of note, on account of its technique. A noticeable feature in this period of free chased work, in pieces with large leaves and fruit or figure subjects, is the bold manner in which the leaf springs from the collet of the foot. Among some of the most treasured objects of this late seventeenth-century outburst of fine craftsmanship are sconces and mirror frames, and especially large beakers and oviform vases and covers with floriated ornament richly chased. It was at that time that Grinling Gibbons the woodcarver revelled in his intricate flower and fruit pieces carved in the soft lime and chestnut woods. There is little doubt that the same artistic impulses were in the air. Side by side with the silversmith’s art were other fashions in furniture, in silk hangings, in costume, in the building and architecture of houses and the habits of the people who dwelt in them. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with so many civil disturbances it was inevitable that easily movable possessions such as{104} plate were the first to be realized. It is not difficult to imagine from the remnants still remaining what the plate must have been like which graced the splendid banqueting halls of the days of Elizabeth. The massive flagons, such as that illustrated page 105, and the gleaming dishes and lordly plates rightly belong to an age when courtiers wore doublets richly sewn with pearls, when dreams of conquests in the New World set men’s minds aflame, when new trade routes were opened and great companies formed, when the sturdy spirit of independence established itself in these realms to take root and develop into world supremacy on the seas, and establish an abiding place in the council chambers of Europe, and when Shakespeare and Ben Jonson, and Kit Marlowe, and Edmund Spenser with inspired vision penetrated into the domain of romance and won enduring fame.

But gold and silver plate hold a somewhat insecure place as historic records. The thief with vandal hands put many a cunningly fashioned vessel into the melting-pot to escape detection. The Civil War with its burnings and plunderings on the one hand, and the loyal devotion of cavaliers who gladly saw their plate go to equip Charles’s army, on the other, accounts for many more specimens of craftsmanship which can never come again. Other treasures left the country; the retinue of Queen Henrietta Maria, her French retainers and her scullions and priests, journeyed in forty coaches to Dover with much plate. Charles I, writing to Buckingham, calls upon Steenie to help him and says: “I command you to send away to-morrow all the French out of the towne,{107} if you can by fair means, but strike not long in disputing, otherways force them away, dryving them like so many wilde beasts, until you have shipped them, and the devil goe with them.” How they plundered the Queen of jewels and plate, and of the money they owed in Drury Lane, and of the scuffle they had with the King’s Guards who turned them out of Somerset House, is a piquant story. To this day in the vaults, beside dusty documents, three stones record the last resting-place of all that is mortal of three of the Queen’s faithful French servants,—a scullion, a chaplain, and a waiting-woman.

ELIZABETHAN FLAGON.

With London date letter for 1599. Decorated in formal strap work and foliated design incised in outline.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

ELIZABETHAN FLAGON.

Marked with leopard’s head, lion rampant, and London date letter for 1572. Decorated in chased floriated design.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

In these troublous Stuart times many pieces of silver were buried by the owners who never came back, and they may still lie buried to this day. Others were disinterred and proudly grace some of our fine collections. One thinks of John Rivett, the blacksmith, who delivered up broken pieces of copper to the Puritan iconoclasts who had directed him to break up the equestrian statue of Charles I. But the statue itself he buried in his garden at Holborn Fields by night, and at the Restoration it was re-erected in its old place at Charing Cross, where it now stands. Without doubt, some of our most treasured plate has had as eventful a history as the “Man on the Black Horse.”

Elizabethan Flagons

To leave standing cups and retrace our steps, we may examine another class of vessel, the flagon. This is tall and usually rotund in shape, having a narrow neck. It belongs to the sixteenth century.{108} Many of the specimens remaining are among communion plate, but its use was not confined to ecclesiastical purposes. The name is of ancient origin, and was possibly at first applied to any vessel holding drink—the Danish word flacon goes back many centuries. We find various references to it in the older writers. Bacon writes: “More had sent him by a suitor in Chancery two silver flagons,” and Shakespeare, in Hamlet, has “A mad rogue! he pour’d a flagon of Rhenish on my head once.” The relationship of the flagon to the tankard is a close one. The form as it continued to the end of the eighteenth century was practically unchanged from that of the earliest known types. It differs from the Italianate ewer with its slender neck and graceful proportions. Ale obviously required a broad, swelling vessel. There is nothing finnicking about that old English beverage. But wine necessitated something more delicate. Although nothing in silver has emulated the modern long, thin-necked, glass claret jugs with silver mounts, yet there has always been a distinction between ale, the popular drink of the people, and wine of foreign origin more pleasing to the palate of the connoisseur.

In the two Elizabethan examples illustrated (page 105), it will be seen that although taller and more grandiose, these are the prototypes of the later tankard, of which the definite form was established in the seventeenth century. The evolution of design, whether it be a continuity of the same technique and medium, or an adaption by the silver worker of the forms of the glass worker, the potter, or the{109} woodworker, is always interesting to the student. There is little doubt that these silver tankards were in a measure derivative from Scandinavian types belonging to the earlier era. Man did not on a sudden invent new shapes for everyday use which no other man, in no other country or in no other age, had ever conceived. The salt-glazed stoneware of Germany and Flanders without doubt introduced new fashions to the silversmith. The canettes of Jacqueline Countess of Hainault in the fifteenth century, Vrouw Jacoba’s Kannetjes, the Cologne cannette of stoneware of middle sixteenth century days, and the Flemish cruche, a decorated jug with a pewter lid and mounts, all had an influence on the silversmith. But the law of supply and demand, even in early days, was something which could not be gainsaid. Man himself determined what was best fitted to his needs.

It will be seen that the earlier example of the two illustrated is dated in London, 1572, the year of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew. It has the almost straight sides, narrowing slightly towards the top and broadening towards the foot. It is decorated with chased floriated design, relieved by vertical bands continued on the cover to the apex. The cover is surmounted by a button, in form like a seal-top spoon of a later era. The handle is bold, and it lacks the strengthening band at the base which is shown in the adjacent example, where the handle is joined to the barrel by a band. The marks will be seen on the face of the piece in the middle of the surface below the cover.

{110}

The other example bears the London date letter for 1599, towards the close of Elizabeth’s reign. The piece is of fine proportions, with massive scroll handle. The cover, as in these earlier examples, is dome-shaped, and is surmounted by a circular radiating disc with baluster ornament. The billet, or thumb-piece, is chased with a man’s head. The decoration of the barrel is of the style frequently found upon tankards and bell salts of the late Elizabethan period and in the early years of James I, that is formal strap work, and scroll leafage incised in outline. The ground between is matted. In passing it may be noticed that this strap design was seized later by the woodworker in his panel work. The body rests on an applied foot, which is repoussé and chased with scroll outlines, similar to the cover. Two bands pass around the barrel and the lower one secures the handle. A panel with female head in relief adds dignity to a specimen which is of exceptional character.

Seventeenth Century Tankards

The word “tankard” belongs to an earlier period than the seventeenth century. It is of widespread derivation. In old French it is tanquaerd, in old Dutch it is tankaerd, and in Irish it is tancaird. And no doubt all three races drank well from these vessels. In the sixteenth century Ben Jonson says:

Hath his tankard touch’d your brain?

Sure they’re fall’n asleep again.

TANKARDS.

WILLIAM III. 1701.

Maker, David Williams. Scroll handle with applique row of rosettes.

CHARLES II. 1679.

Chased acanthus leaf handle with beaded ornament. Lower part chased with acanthus leaves.

CHARLES II TANKARDS. 1684.

Maker, George Gibson, York.

Maker, William Busfield, York.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

“When any calls for ale,” says Swift, “fill the largest tankard cup top full.” But silversmiths and{113} collectors have their own nomenclature apart from poets, and the tankard belongs, in spite of literary proof to the contrary, to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is the poet, again, who has continued the use of the word flagon, regardless of the anachronism. Be it a tankard, a mug, jug, can, pot, bottle or glass, such prosaic terms are swept aside in verse to figure as the “flagon” or the “flowing bowl.”

The tankard of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries becomes more utilitarian, and more national in character. The body is drum-like in form, and the cover is flat. In order to show how little the form differed from Charles II to William III, the examples illustrated on page 111 prove this point. The earlier example, on the right, is chased with acanthus and palm leaves. The beaded ornament on the handle is a feature in both.

Two other specimens are illustrated on page 111, both with the York date letter B for 1684, the year before the death of Charles II. One is made by George Gibson and the other by William Busfield. The taller tankard has a flat two-membered lid, and the other has a flat one-membered lid. In both these examples it is observable that the scroll handles have an extension of no utilitarian value. It is not beautiful nor useful. In comparison with the William III example illustrated on same page, the difference will at once be seen. In these examples a noticeable feature is the moulded base. Gradually the spread foot became of diminished size. It was of no practical use. Later forms show a restraint, almost a poverty{114} of symmetrical design, by the absence of the foot. The form becomes more squat. We are accustomed to it in English plate, but it compares slightly unfavourably with foreign plate, where the balance is more sustained. The massive handle really demands a more solid base. In the York examples, where the finials of the handle trail on the ground, it is especially noticeable. The billets or thumb-pieces are evidently designed for ornament, and follow earlier examples of greater proportions. If they err, they err on the side of strength.

In the Exeter example illustrated on page 115, the maker’s mark is ., and the piece also bears the stamped marks of Britannia and the lion’s head erased, denoting the higher standard. The date letter is for 1705. This is typically Queen Anne style, and is a year after Marlborough’s great victory at Blenheim. The scroll handle is massive and the terminal is level with the base. The marks are illustrated at the foot of the page, and can be seen clearly on the body of the piece below the cover. It is an extremely interesting specimen, worthy of the cabinet of the collector. The thumb-piece is in the form of a convoluted scroll resembling the shell-like ornament placed on early salt cellars. It is essentially a metal-worker’s device, but it may be remarked that in salt cellars of faience the same ornament is used. The Lambeth delft salt cellar of the late seventeenth century, illustrated on page 161, indicates this parallel between the potter and the silversmith.

QUEEN ANNE TANKARD.

With Exeter marks for 1705. Maker’s mark Ao. Including the Higher Standard marks.

(Illustrated above.)

(By courtesy of Spencer Cox, Esq.)

GEORGE II MUG.

With Exeter marks for 1733 illustrated.

GEORGE II TANKARD.

With Exeter marks for 1748 (illustrated p. 391).

(By courtesy of Messrs. Ellett Lake & Son, Exeter.)

The other two Exeter examples are illustrated on page 117, and are of the period of George II. It will{119} be seen that the cover leaves the flat form hitherto fixed during a long period extending back to Charles II, and begins to resume the domed shape of the early Elizabethan types. But there is no knob or button with baluster ornament such as in the earlier forms. The dome top of the later period is exceptionally reticent. In turning back to the William III example illustrated on page 111, in date 1701, it will be seen that the flat top did, on occasion, have an ornament; in this example the ornament takes an elaborate form, but as a rule the flat-topped tankard without ornament may be said to extend from about 1640 to 1740. In the Exeter tankard, dated 1748, the handle still follows the previous styles, and adds an ornamental form in its terminal which gives a pleasing effect with its terminal in double curves. The adjacent mug is the precursor of the new form of vessel which became individual. The tankard was passed around and followed the custom observed in the loving-cup. But the mug was personal and exhibited a change in the drinking habits of the common folk. It became a common utensil in inns in pewter, and its proportions were governed by statute. The date of this silver mug is 1733, in the reign of George II. The marks, with the Exeter date letter for the year 1733, are shown under the illustration (page 117).

The Stuart Beaker

The potter and the glassworker were always dogging the heels of the silversmith. Now and again the silversmith borrowed an idea from the{120} other arts. The Stuart beakers are a class apart. We illustrate examples from the opening years of the seventeenth century—James I, 1606, to the days of Charles II. The James I beaker, in date 1606, shows the engraved floral design of well-balanced proportions. It is a tall, cylindrical vessel, and the decoration is in keeping with the surface to be ornamented. The engraving slightly suggests in its character, though not in its technique, the strapwork decoration of the same period. The marks of this piece are given on page 361.

These are interesting illustrations of evolution. The second example of the time of Charles I shows a slackness in design which compares unfavourably with the specimen of the previous reign. This is a piece just prior to the outburst of the Civil War. Even here, slight as is the engraving, we catch the suggestion of the later Stuart lozenge decoration employed in other arts, as for instance in furniture, notably in Stuart chair backs of this period. The love for the parallelogram was not confined to the silver worker.

The Charles II beaker, in date 1671, is without ornament. It was made a year after the infamous secret treaty of Dover, when Charles II became a pensioner of Louis XIV to the tune of £150,000 down and £225,000 a year.

JAMES I BEAKER. 1606.

CHARLES II BEAKER. 1671.

CHARLES I BEAKER. 1631.

Marks (illustrated p. 361.)

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

The process of evolution is plain. First the tall shape with the spreading foot, followed by the squatter form with less ornament where the foot disappears, and is succeeded in a short time by the plain type. Here we have the precursor of the glass{123} tumbler. What the silversmith made was obviously too expensive for the ordinary person. The glass workers introduced by the Duke of Buckingham from Venice in the reign of Charles II found a fashion ready to their hands. This silver beaker of the days of the Merry Monarch stands as a prototype of the modern glass tumbler. The succession of forms is something to be proud of in the history of a country. The peculiar usage of words, the continuance of old observances, and the development of costume, have each found exponents to specialize on the evolution of types and the succession to present forms. But who has idealized the glass tumbler of the public-house bar? Here in silver is the definite prototype, and no glass maker has invented anything more suitable. For wear and tear he has made the base thicker, or shall we say to disguise the fact that the glass contains less than it purports to hold?

The Wine Cup

The Stuart wine cups of silver are of exceptional interest. They are of graceful form and exhibit a variety of baluster ornament of pleasing character. The tall wine cup of the time of James I is the work of Peter Peterson, a noted silversmith of Norwich. The Norwich mark of the castle and the maker’s mark of the orb and cross are clearly visible in the illustration of the cup itself, and are further illustrated on page 395. The stem is slender and of baluster form. The upper part of the bowl has small trefoils of engraved ornament depending on the line running around the brim. The lower part of the{124} bowl is embossed with leaves and floral conventional pattern. The foot is similarly embossed.

Sometimes these wine cups, or grace cups as they are termed, because it is believed that they were used at the end of a banquet to drink a grace, have octagonal bowls. These are found in the early seventeenth century. Other forms are like the modern open-bowled champagne-glass.

Charles I wine cups obviously are not common. The Civil War laid a heavy toll on such portable articles. During the Commonwealth, according to all report, in the words of Butler in his Hudibras, the Roundheads had a tendency to

Compound for sins they are inclin’d to

By damning those they have no mind to,

and we have Lord Macaulay’s well-known pronouncement that the Puritans condemned bear-baiting not so much for the pain which it gave to the bear, as for the pleasure which it gave to the spectators. It is not to be supposed, therefore, that wine cups of the Commonwealth period were much in evidence. To come to the days of Charles II, the Great Fire of London in 1666 did enormous damage. The Clothworkers’ Hall burnt for three days and nights on account of the oil in the cellars. The Pepys Cup happily was saved, as we have seen. This was in September, but so great was the area of the fire in the city that the ground continued to smoke in December. Lady Carteret told Pepys that pieces of burned paper were driven by the wind as far as Cranborne in Windsor Forest. London remained{127} in ruins till 1668. Pepys goes to Whitehall at the outset of the fire to tell the King what he had seen, and he suggested precautions by blowing up houses to stop the spread of the fire. Pepys is solicitous for the safety of the Navy Office, which was between Crutched Friars and Seething Lane, and Sir William Penn brought the workmen from Woolwich and Deptford yards to demolish houses on the “Tower Street and Fenchurch sides.” It is interesting to read that the Diarist sent off his money, plate, and valuables to Sir W. Rider at Bethnal Green, and then he and Sir William Penn dug a hole in their garden in which they put their wine and Parmezan cheese. All this is piquant in regard to the vicissitudes of fortune through which our old plate has passed.

JAMES I TALL WINE CUP.

Norwich hall-mark. Maker, Peter Peterson.

(Marks illustrated p. 395.)

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

The examples of wine cups illustrated on page 129 show two forms. One is taller than the other, and they stand as the great prototypes in solid silver of our modern wine glasses. Indeed, there is nothing to indicate that they are of silver in the illustration, save the dark surface of the bowl. It is pleasant to be able to give a Charles I piece dated 1631. The maker of this is William Shute. This belongs to the earlier period of the reign of Charles I, when the shadows were deepening. It is a delicately balanced cup with slender stem and finely proportioned baluster ornament. The marks are illustrated page 361. The other cup is of the Charles II period, and the marks are shown beneath, the maker’s being P. D. and the date letter being for 1665, an eventful year. The Plague of London was{128} now at its height. The first Dutch war commenced, and in June the Dutch were defeated under Van Tromp at Lowestoft.

The adjacent illustration (page 129) shows other contemporary metal work. Here is a brass candlestick of the middle seventeenth century. The baluster ornament is common to the silver cup and to the brass candlestick. No two of these candlesticks are alike, the baluster ornament varying according to the individual mood of the maker. It is the same factor which predominates in Jacobean furniture with turned rails with varying ornaments. The chain is complete. The silversmith, the brass-worker, the woodcarver, and the glassblower each found, according to his technique, this style of ornament pleasing to his mind. Accordingly the collector who comes after may see for himself the influence each has had on the other. The student may see in the established form of the stem of the modern wine glass something tempting him to linger over the process of evolution.

The Punch-bowl

Artists and writers have made the punch-bowl of the eighteenth century familiar. The china collector well knows that it was not always of silver. The amateur collector is always to the fore with his punch-ladle with silver bowl and ebony handle, and the said ladle must always have a coin of the period soldered at the bottom of the bowl to denote its genuineness. Alas! so few of these are authentic. The coin, which among other things should be the{131} stamp of veracity, does not agree with the hall-marks—and one lie in a piece damns it in its entirety. It is a sad story, but punch-ladles seem to be the first step in obliquity of the faker. They are easy to make, and apparently easy to palm off on the young collector. There are hundreds of people who have a punch-ladle with a history—not the real history—but they have not a punch-bowl. It is like having a bridle without a horse.

STUART SILVER WINE CUPS.

Taller, 1631 (Charles I). Maker, William Shute. (Marks illustrated p. 361.)

Smaller, 1665 (Charles II). (Marks illustrated beneath.)

(In possession of Messrs. Garrard.)

BRASS CANDLESTICK.

English Middle Seventeenth Century.

Height 7 in.

(In collection of author.)

The “Monteith” form of punch-bowl, with removable rim of scalloped form, made thus for the insertion of wine glasses, was known as early as 1701. Nobody can say why the term “Monteith” was applied to this, but presumably it was taken from the inventor or first user, much in the same manner as our current words, sandwich, orrery, cardigan, wellington, identify objects first used by, or contemporary with, the persons whose names they bear.

The punch-bowl is comparatively modern, inasmuch as the beverage itself is not of ancient date. The word “punch” is said to have been derived from the Hindustani, signifying the five ingredients—spirit, water, sugar, lemon, and spice. “A quart of ale is a dish for a king,” says Shakespeare in A Winter’s Tale; “Then to the spicy nut-brown ale,” says Milton in his L’Allegro. With the advent of William III there is no doubt that spirit drinking became prevalent, though it was not till the middle of the eighteenth century that the evil became a national crime fostered by the greed of the Government for taxes. The drunkenness in the reign of{132} George II was appalling. William Hogarth, the great satirist of the eighteenth century, holds the mirror to his day in the two prints, Beer Street and Gin Lane, published in 1751. In the former, though it cannot be said to be idyllic, the comparative prosperity of the populace under the beer-drinking regime is satirically compared with their condition under the dominion of Gin in his companion picture, where for gruesome details the graver of the satirist is unsurpassed. In the foreground of this truly horrible print is a woman half in rags, evidently in a drunken condition, while the infant is slipping from her arms into a cellar, from which hangs the distiller’s spirit measure. Hogarth does not believe in half-truths. A stupefied wretch close by is clutching a keg of gin. On an adjacent parapet a dog is sharing a bone with a sot. The pawnbroker is shown as doing a busy trade. A woman is giving gin to her infant from a glass. The tottering buildings with falling bricks are symbolic of the utter rottenness of the social fabric. The spire of St. George’s, Bloomsbury, stands out as indicative of the aloofness of the Church to this devilish orgy. St. Giles is triumphant. The lurid background completes a terrible indictment of the Government of the day—the ghouls lifting a man into a coffin with a naked child at the foot, the bandaged heads and lifted stools of a drunken mob, the drunken man in a wheelbarrow with more gin being poured down his throat. Hogarth with his touch of irony combines the pathos of tears, young children standing innocently apathetic to all this, the everyday environment{133} of their lives. This was Hogarth’s biting criticism on the attempt to stimulate the drinking of spirits and decrease the consumption of beer. Hogarth is coarse, he is offensive, he is brutal; but he deserves well of all who love truth. Rabelais had to paint his satires in gigantic gruesomeness to reach the ear of his day. Brutishness cannot be exorcised by the sprinkling of rose-water.

The punch-bowl comes straight from this period. We take it as we find it, symbolic of days when Members of Parliament did not disdain to hiccough their drunken speeches in the House, when Cabinet Ministers were not ashamed of being drunk.

This belongs to the early Georgian era; it is associated with Jacobite plots, with suppers held in secret, with toasts drunk in solemn ritual to the King over the water. It belongs to the hunting squires and parsons too, to the nabobs from “John Company,” and to the nebulous period of Hanoverian ascendancy. The Stuarts were dead with their fateful, romantic, and final downfall. Their memory lingered in the people’s hearts; it was kept alive by the old religion, and it haunted the songs of the people. But the Georges, by law elect, had planted their feet firmly—and the House of Hanover survived all romance.

Among the classes of punch-bowls the Monteith takes the aristocratic place. Its decoration is pretentious. Its utility, with its removable rim with the scalloped edge, is its claim to recognition, by the collector. The specimen illustrated (page 135),{134} in date 1704, comes straight from the days when Charles Mordaunt, Lord Peterborough, performed his marvellous exploits in Spain. He captured Barcelona in 1705. Scholar, wit, man of fashion, he was Commander-in-Chief of the armies and the fleet in the Spanish War. He was as chivalrous as Don Quixote. He married Anastasia Robinson, the prima donna of her day. “Brave to temerity, liberal to profusion, courteous in his dealings with his enemies, a protector of the oppressed, an adorer of woman—the last of the knights-errant. He lived,” says Walpole, his biographer, “a romance, but was capable of making it a history.” This specimen comes straight from these days of sea fight and land fight in Spain and in the Low Countries under Marlborough, when “our army,” to quote Uncle Toby, “swore terribly in Flanders.”

The Queen Anne soberness of design seems to have been discarded in these Monteiths. There is something rococo and elaborate, as though in defiance of established reticence. The heavy ornament of lion’s head and handles, the massive gadrooned edge of the scalloped design, the bowl deeply fluted, the embossed medallion with coat of arms, and the foot enriched with beaded ornament, all indicate that such specimens were regarded as the Standing Cup, so to speak, of the period.

With the punch-bowl an end practically is made of silver vessels for drinking. The sovereignty of glass was now established. Porcelain and even earthenware had made inroads into the silversmith’s domain. The age of modernity was at hand.

{135}

“MONTEITH” PUNCH BOWL. LONDON, 1704.

Higher Standard Marks and Maker, Andrew Fogelberg.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

CHAPTER IV

THE SALT CELLAR

Early salt cellars—The standing salt—The hour-glass form—The bell-shaped salt—The seventeenth century—octagonal and circular types—The eighteenth century—trencher salts—Tripod salts—The openwork style with glass liner—The evolution of form in the salt cellar of the later periods.

In the old days when costume determined the gentle from the simple, when demarcations of rank were definitely pronounced, when men wore feathers in their hats and swords at their sides, when retainers and menials sat at the same board with their lord and lady, the customs of the table were not our customs. It was only in Elizabeth’s day, when dinner was served at a long table, that the oaken floor replaced rushes. The diners threw bones to the dogs, and although sweet sounds came from the musician’s gallery, the scene one may recall is one rather of barbaric splendour than of luxurious refinement. To him who loves to quicken the dry bones of collecting into something pulsating with life, the salt cellar provides a delight which is not easily equalled. It was an honoured guest at every feast. It was the social thermometer which marked the{142} exact degree of rank of the sitters. Persons of distinction sat above the salt, and between it and the head of the table. Those who sat below the salt were dependents and inferior guests.

If only these salt cellars reproduced as illustrations could give tongue to the secrets they caught in whisper from the upper end of the table before the withdrawing chamber, prototype of our modern drawing-room, became a necessity! If walls had ears, and if the salt cellars of Tudor England or of the stormy days of the Stuarts could have been fitted with American gramophone wax cylinders, the by-ways of secret history would be less tangled to the historian.

Had this been the case, modern millionaires would have been in competition with one another to secure precious records, as it is only a rich man who can afford to gather together a representative collection of old salt cellars. But for all that, the collector with small means, who is less ambitious, may obtain specimens that are of exceptional interest, and in his quest he may, even in these days when collectors scour Europe, come across an example which may be antique.

As may be imagined, these “salts” are very varied in character. They may be of silver, of earthenware, or of ivory. They may be of simple form with little to distinguish them artistically, or, on the other hand, of such intricate design and rare workmanship as to make them superb examples of the art of the jeweller or silversmith.

STANDING SALT CELLAR. GOTHIC PERIOD. c. 1500.

Hour-glass form. Height 9¹/₄ in. From a drawing by De la Motte.

(At Christ’s College, Cambridge.)

Take, for instance, the salt cellar sold at Christie{145}’s in 1902 for £3,000. It was only 7⁵/₈ inches in height. It is silver-gilt, bearing the London hall-mark for 1577, and the maker’s mark, a hooded falcon, probably the work of Thomas Bampton, of the “Falcon.” The receptacle for the salt is of rock crystal, and the base stands upon claw feet, which are of crystal. The cover is square, having a circular dome top, above which stands a delicately modelled figure of a cherub as an apex.

A standing salt of the time of James I, with the London hall-mark for 1613, was sold at Christie’s in 1903 for £1,150. The height of this is 11³/₈ inches, and beyond its special value on account of its age and rarity, its form is not possessed of greater elegance than many a lowly pepper caster whose presence it would scorn on the same board.

From the rare Henri II majolica of the sixteenth century to the humble trencher salt, the range of salt cellars is a comprehensive one. The most sumptuous examples, set in a magnificence of chased design exhibiting the finest craftsmanship of the goldsmith and silversmith, command high prices on account of their rarity, and old salts of exceptional character place their collecting in the hands of the elect whose cabinets are known all over the world. But there are many lesser examples of the silversmith’s work, and it is not yet too late to acquire pieces suggestive of days when at the table “the jest was crowned at the upper end and the lower half made echo.”

The City Companies possess many fine examples, and among the college plate at Oxford and Cambridge there are many unequalled specimens of the{146} high-standing old salts. There is the silver-gilt plain salt presented by Roger Dunster to the Clothworkers’ Company in 1641, and another a drum-shaped salt, silver-gilt, the “Guift of Daniel Waldo, Clothworker, Esquire, an^o 1660.” Then there is the circular salt and cover, 22 inches high, of the Goldsmiths’ Company, with the date letter of the year 1601, which was “the guift of Richard Rogers, Comptroller of His Maj^ties Mynt” ... “desiring the same may bee used at their solemne meetings and to bee remembered as a good benefactor, anno dⁿⁱ 1632.” This salt has a body of glass, round which are two silver-gilt collars in chased and repoussé work. The Goldsmiths’ Company have other salts, notably one the “Gift of Thomas Seymour” in 1693. The Haberdashers’ Company have a circular salt the gift of Sir Hugh Hammersley in 1636. The Innholders’ Company have two circular salts the gift of John Wetterworth in 1626, and a circular salt, silver-gilt, 16 inches high, with a dome raised on four scrolls, terminated by an obelisk, the gift of Anne, widow of John Sweete, 1635. The Ironmongers’ Company have two fine silver salts, parcel gilt, shaped like hour-glasses, having six-foiled sides, in three of which is foliage engraved. The date of one is 1518 and of the other 1522. The Skinners’ Company have a silver-gilt octagonal salt 9 inches high, the gift of Ben Albin, a member, in 1676. The Mercers’ Company salts we are enabled to illustrate by courteous permission. The Vintners’ Company have a fine silver-gilt salt, the gift of John Powel, Master of the Company, in 1702. It is like a square casket in form, with{149} panels richly decorated in bold relief with figures, and the cover surmounted by an urn upon which stands a female figure.

ELIZABETHAN BELL-SHAPED SALT CELLAR.

Having compartments for salt and spices. On three ball feet. London 1601. Decorated with designs of roses in flat chasing in upright panels.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

Some rare examples are in the possession of corporate bodies. There is the silver-gilt salt and cover, 15¹/₄ inches high, belonging to the Corporation of Norwich. This is, as the inscription indicates, “The Gyfte of Petar Reade Esqviar.” The plate marks are a roman capital letter D, the arms of Norwich, and a cross mound within a lozenge. It was made at Norwich, and its date is not later than 1568, for Peter Reade died in that year.

Then there is the wonderful Ashburnham salt cellar and cover of the time of Henry VII, the earliest standing salt, 12¹/₂ inches high, bearing the London hall-mark of the year 1508, and the maker’s mark, a rising sun. This was bought by Messrs. Crichton Brothers for £5,600.

Later salt cellars, while still being collectors’ pieces, depart from the older form when “below the salt” had no meaning. The old silver salt cellars of Queen Anne and Georgian days are another story. The elegance of form and the quaint reticence of design make them desirable acquisitions for any modern dining-table.

During the past twenty years, when the furniture of Chippendale and of Sheraton has been collected with such avidity to refurnish old homes and to give age to modern mansions, the demand for old silver accessories of the table has been equally great. In consequence, spurious silver of later date, with the old hall-marks cunningly inserted, has appeared in great{150} quantities. As a warning to the collector of “old salts,” it cannot too strongly be urged that in his earliest flights he should consult a friend who has passed through the same stages before him. The same advice is, unfortunately, necessary in connection with collecting old china and old furniture. The literature of these two subjects is more ready to hand, and there are many popular handbooks designed to set the feet of the novice in collecting on the right path. In silver collecting there is always a sure road. In furniture or in china there is no puissant company of furniture experts or china moralists. The buyer may be advised to use his common sense and demand that the dealer put on the invoice the exact description of the goods he is selling. If after expert advice the purchaser finds he has been deceived, he has his remedy in a court of law. But with silver, there are the hall-marks determined by law for the protection of the public. The Goldsmiths’ Company exist to safeguard the public against fraud, and their honourable traditions extend, as we have seen, over four hundred years. If any buyer has any doubt as to the London marks or the provincial marks on a piece of silver he has purchased, it is easy to establish their authenticity. If, for instance, the mark is a London one, the Goldsmiths’ Company would obviously be pleased to discover the identity of any one counterfeiting their ancient marks. They have statutory powers to inflict fines on persons convicted of such malpractices, and in the public interest they would naturally prosecute inquiries as to how false marks came to be{153} placed on silver purporting to be assayed by an old and honourable company.

CIRCULAR SALT CELLAR.

Silver-gilt. Dated 1638, and having London hall-mark of that date.

Greatest height 6³/₁₆ in.

Engraved with the arms of the Mercers’ Company and the arms of John Dethick, the donor.

(See marks illustrated p. 365.)

(By courtesy of the Mercers’ Company.)

You may search the chronological tables of the statutes through and through, and you will find nothing relative to punishments specially laid down to meet the case of fabricators of old furniture or old china, but in regard to forging old silver marks there are a multitude of protective measures. There is reform needed in the laws relating to silver, and urgently needed. We offer this suggestion to some Member of Parliament bursting to distinguish himself. It was urgently recommended by the Committee of 1856, and a Bill was prepared by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in 1857, but nothing came of it. The Select Committee of the House of Commons, again, in 1879 made further recommendations, but no restrictive measure has ever been laid before Parliament. “There is much to say for the old demand of the Goldsmiths’ Company for further powers of enforcing the law than the mere right to sue for penalties. Sales by auction now take place with practical impunity, no matter how spurious and debased the goods may be, and there is evidence and to spare to show that the general sense of the trade and the public is in favour of the preservations of the old guarantee.”

The study of salt cellars suggests a flying word on the salt spoon. To quote from an essay by Addison, dated 1711, the Spectator says, in an account he gives of dining with a fine lady: “In the midst of these my Musings she desires me to reach her a little Salt upon the point of my Knife, which I did in such{154} Trepidation and hurry of Obedience, that I let it drop by the way, at which she immediately startled and said it fell towards her. Upon this I looked very blank; and, observing the Concern of the whole Table, began to consider myself with some confusion, as a person that had brought some Disaster upon the Family.” This is a pretty picture of eighteenth century “high life.” The superstition concerning the spilling of salt is still with us, but helping salt with a knife is no longer in fashion in “polite society.”

In general salt cellars may be classified as follows, commencing with the Standing Salt, with its determination of rank as to those who sat above the salt and those who sat below it:—

Standing Salts.—The earliest are shaped like hour-glasses. These belong to the fifteenth and first half of sixteenth century.

Cylindrical and casket forms, with rich ornamentation in repoussé work, with chased figures and surmounted by cover with standing figure, are found in the sixteenth century. E.g. the Standing Salt, part of the Stoke Prior treasure, dated 1563 (at the Victoria and Albert Museum).

The Bell-shaped Salt is of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, and the tall Steeple Salt belongs to the same period. The above types often had compartments in tiers reserved for spices.{157}

The circular and octagonal forms of lesser height, with three and sometimes four guards with scroll ends, belong to the seventeenth century.

OCTAGONAL SALT CELLAR.

With four guards. London, 1679.

Having the arms of the company and inscribed “Ex dono Henrici Sumner. Mr.” This is known as the Sumner Salt, the gift of the Master of that date.

Greatest height 8³/₈ in.

(For marks see p. 357.)

(By courtesy of the Mercers’ Company.)

Trencher Salts.—These were in use contemporaneously with the tall standing salts, either on less formal occasions or at the lower end of the table below the salt.

Early forms in the first half of the seventeenth century are circular (1603) or triangular (1630). These were diminutive, measuring only some 3 inches across, and being sometimes only 1 inch high.

Eighteenth-century Salts.—A great variety of form is apparent, and many styles succeeded each other, disappearing only to be revived a quarter of a century later. Circular (1698-1710), oval, octagonal (1715-40), tripod (1750). Circular with three feet; oblong and octagonal, slightly taller (1775), with pierced work on four feet, and with glass liner. Oblong, plain, with four feet. Tureen-shaped or boat-shaped, plain, with swelling foot, sometimes with rings as handles, or with two handles (1780). Shell-shaped salts in vogue 1788; circular, vase-shaped, with lions’ heads and tripod feet (1798).

Early Nineteenth-century Salts.—George IV and William IV styles, a reversion to some of the older types. The tureen and the circular-shaped salt, with four or three{158} feet (1820-1830). Circular bowls on stands, with tripod and elaborate feet, the fashion (1810-1830). Many pieces betray classical influence.

The illustrations of the various types of salt cellars should be sufficient to indicate to the reader the great field which is open to him. The examples range from the rarer earlier periods to the beginning of the nineteenth century. The descriptions given of the successive stages in fashion and in design should stimulate the interest of the student in regard to the undercurrents of evolution progressive, and often retrogressive, through three centuries of the silversmith’s art.

The standing salt, in hour-glass form, of the Gothic period at Christ’s College, Cambridge, illustrated (page 143), is in date about 1500. Its height is 9¹/₄ inches. It belongs to that great period of Henry VII. It is contemporary with the magnificent chapel in Westminster Abbey. It has survived the spoliation of the days of Henry VIII. Its perfect symmetry, its delicate ornament, its exquisite grace delight the eye. There is nothing redundant, nothing that calls for amendment. It stands as a perfect creation of the English silversmith. The unwritten, and never to be written, history of such a piece is not the least which appeals to us nowadays. We may revere the exquisite craft of the designer. But there is a tribute we owe to the sagacious custodians who, possibly in fear of death, preserved this for posterity. Its hiding-places, its{159} narrow escapes, its glorious emerging into the light of day, to occupy a niche, almost sacred, in modern regard, these are happenings that cannot be chronicled. As an historic relic, a page remaining from the old history of these realms, such an example claims adoration.

A fine bell salt is illustrated (page 147). It is on three ball feet. It has the London mark, the letter D in Lombardic capitals, for 1601. It is decorated in upright panels, with flat chasing with floral design of roses. It is constructed in compartments for salt and spices and pepper. These bell salts belong to the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century; they are mostly on three feet. At the Dunn-Gardner sale, in 1902, £600 was paid for a specimen. They stand, in point of time, between the hour-glass form and the steeple salts. Few appear to have been made, or, at any rate, few are now in existence, and in consequence they bring great prices on account of their rarity.

The ring at the top is noticeable, mainly as the prototype of the ring-handle of cruets, with the same contents now in use three hundred years afterwards. And the ball foot, peculiar to the silversmith as something especially applicable to his technique is still retained in silver cruets of to-day.

The circular Stuart salt cellar comes straight from the days of Charles I. It has the date letter for 1638. See Marks illustrated page 365. This salt stood on the Mercers’ Company table in 1642—eventful year, when Charles was misguided enough{160} to go in person to the House of Commons with his guards to arrest the five members. This was the signal for the Civil War. The salt cellar we now see was hurriedly put in the vaults of the Mercers’ Company. The trained-bands of London were up. The city declared for the Parliament, and Charles raised his standard at Nottingham. John Dethick, the donor, may have fought in the civic cause. Here is the salt he gave to his Company in those stirring days, an illustration of which we are enabled to produce by the courtesy of the Mercers’ Company. It has three handles with scroll ends. It is an important piece. It is silver-gilt, and engraved with the arms of the Mercers’ Company and the arms and crest of John Dethick.

The octagonal salt illustrated (p. 155) shows the style of Charles II. It has four handles with scroll ends. These handles were for supporting a napkin which was placed around the salt. It is of the year 1679, and the marks are illustrated on page 357. It is inscribed, “Ex dono henrici Sumner M^r.” This is known as the Sumner Salt, and Henry Sumner, the donor, was Master of the Mercers’ Company at that date. Its diameter is 9¹/₂ inches and its greatest height is 8³/₈ inches. This is the year of the Habeas Corpus Act. This Act defines the liberties of the subject. All prisoners except those charged with felony or treason can demand that they be brought before a judge to test the validity of their detention. All persons charged with felony or treason must be tried at the next sessions or else admitted to bail, or, failing this, be discharged. No person could{163} be recommitted for the same offence and no person imprisoned beyond the sea. Heavy penalties were imposed on those who violated this Act.

SPECIMENS OF EARTHENWARE SALT CELLARS.

LAMBETH DELFT SALT CELLAR.

Late seventeenth century. Height 4¹/₂ in.

ROUEN FAIENCE SALT CELLAR.

Early eighteenth century. Height 3 in.

(In collection of author.)

Contemporary with the silversmith’s work it is interesting to notice in passing what the potter was doing. We illustrate (p. 161) a Lambeth delft salt cellar of the late seventeenth century. Its height is only 4¹/₂ inches. It simulates the silver style. The guards or handles are more shell-like in form than those of the silversmith. The technique of the potter with his twisting of the plastic clay is responsible of this. But the furniture maker of the period has something to add, too, in regard to this form of ornament. In his technique it is termed the “Spanish foot.” It appears in feet and in the scrolls of handles for chairs.

A salt cellar of Rouen faience is illustrated (p. 161) of the early eighteenth century. In height this is 3 inches. It shows the square form, with slight depressed surface at apex for the salt, as though the salt were a rare commodity. It is interesting, and should help the student to cast his eyes farther afield in attempting to arrive at conclusions in regard to definite styles.

Of Trencher salts there is much to say. All that is not poetry is prose, as Monsieur Jourdain found out. A salt may be Standing—that is, it may be a ceremonial piece demanding the ritual of its order—or it may be a mere trencher salt; the name indicates its usage. Instead of being among the great folk, it was among the dependents at the lower stratum of the table. Trencher salts were once menial in the{164} earlier periods, but as time went on the great standing salt disappeared and trencher salts became general for gentle and simple.

Throughout the eighteenth century, from Queen Anne to George IV (1820), and in succeeding years the salts were all trencher salts—because there were none other.

In the early days trencher salts were associated with servility or with dependence, but later the salt at the elbow of the master of the feast carried with it nothing derogatory.

From Queen Anne, 1702, to the end of the reign of George I, 1727, little difference is noticeable and the lowly trencher salt changes very slightly. It is oblong or it becomes octagonal. But in practical form it is substantially the same. Two specimens exhibiting this are given (p. 165).

The circular salts, with three feet, belong to the early George III period. The feet in these are in hoof form with cone-shaped terminals (see illustration, p. 165).

The early George III period exhibits other varieties of the salt cellar. There was the wire-work cellar with cast additions, and the pierced and cut sheet silver. Most of these types are oblong in shape and were designed to receive a glass liner. These specimens are usually with four feet. The example dated 1769 is of wire work. The other example adjacent with floral wreath, dated 1785, is in the French style, which became prevalent at the last quarter of the eighteenth century. The feet of these examples are usually claw-and-ball or lion’s paw feet. It may be interesting to note the contemporary styles of the chair maker. The same influences were at work governing the worker in wood and the craftsman in metal.

{165}

TRENCHER SALTS.

QUEEN ANNE. 1712.

GEORGE II. 1730.

CIRCULAR SALT WITH THREE FEET.

EARLY GEORGE III. 1768.

GEORGE III. 1785.

Feet with hoof-shaped and cone-shaped terminals.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

{167}

SALTS WITH GLASS LINER AND FOUR FEET.

EARLY GEORGE III. 1769.

GEORGE III. 1785.

Wire work with cast additions and pierced and cut sheet silver. Floral wreaths and chain period in French style. Claw and ball feet and lion’s paw feet.

CIRCULAR SALT WITH THREE FEET.

GEORGE III. 1786.

Cloven hoof feet.

OBLONG SALT WITH FOUR FEET.

GEORGE III. 1789.

Feet with club terminal.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

{169}

The cloven-hoof foot or the club terminal are found in the round shaped salt cellar in the same period or slightly later. Usually this type is found with three feet. This plain form dispenses with the glass liner.

Towards the close of the eighteenth century the styles become varied. There is the tureen form, from which type many variations are based. Similarly the boat-shaped salt is typical of many similar plain designs of this nature—some with two handles.

The examples illustrated (p. 171), in vogue from 1781 to 1797, show the generic type from which similar forms deviate.

As in the above types the swelling foot is a feature, so with other examples, from 1789 to 1803, the foot disappears. The piece in date 1789, illustrated (p. 171), may be compared with similar circular forms made by the Staffordshire potters in lustreware for cottage use.

The washing-tub shaped salt cellar, in date 1803, indicates the decadence of design. The opening years of the nineteenth century show these poor forms in replacement of the early designs.

Specimens of the days of George IV and William IV (one in date 1820 and the other 1832) are illustrated (p. 173). Here is a reversion to older forms, the tureen shape with gadrooned edge and with four legs, and the circular form with three legs.

Of the circular form the classic rotund urn or vase shape seized the fancy of the silversmith at various{170} periods. As early as 1771 we find the form in the perforated work, with swags and classic ornamentation, rather suggestive of French fashions, and obviously intended for use with a glass liner. This is illustrated (p. 173), and adjacent is a piece dated 1810, made by Messrs. Rundell, Bridge, and Rundell, of the late George III period. It is important, as it is silver-gilt. It stands as typical of the attempt to popularize the Pompeiian forms. The winged figure, found on tables of the period, the tripod feet of club or goat-like form, the base with key-pattern ornament, stamp it as of the First Empire. George III was not yet dead, he was only insane, and Bonaparte had not been banished to St. Helena. In fact, Wellington was fighting in Spain, and Waterloo had yet to be fought in 1815. But here is a piece with the same artistic impulses as the chairs and tables at Fontainebleau.

The story of the salt cellar comes to an end. Its customs and its dignities are lost except to those who love the delving into the record of the manners of past days, “now here, at upper end o’ the table, now i’ the middle.” The salt cellar has a complete history for three hundred years, and with its evolution pari passu is the march of social custom.

SALE PRICES

STANDING SALTS.

			£
Elizabethan	(1573), 10 oz.		245
”	(1577), 13 oz. 18 dwts.		720
James I	(bell-shaped)	(1608)	336
”	”	(1613)	1,150

{171}

GEORGE III SALTS WITH SWELLING FOOT.

1781-1790.

The tureen-form salt, from which type many variations are based.

1791-1797.

The boat shaped salt, typical of many similar plain designs, some with handles.

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE FOOT.

GEORGE III. 1789.

The circular salt. Simultaneously with this the Staffordshire potters made similar forms in lustre ware for cottage use.

GEORGE III. 1803.

The washing-tub salt. The decadence of design is shown in the opening years of nineteenth century, when poor forms replaced the early styles.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

{173}

REVERSION TO OLDER FORMS.

GEORGE IV. 1820.

WILLIAM IV. 1832.

Three feet and four feet both employed.

CIRCULAR SALT CELLARS IN VOGUE.

GEORGE III. 1771.

Perforated work with classic ornament.

LATE GEORGE III. 1810.

Made by Rundell, Bridge & Rundell.

Attempt to adopt new forms, Pompeian and others; tripod feet very small.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

{175}

TRENCHER SALTS.

		£
William and Mary, 235s. per oz.		20
William III (3) (1698), 132s. per oz.		60
Queen Anne	(2), oval (1708), 165s. per oz.	40
”	(2), circular (1713), 195s. per oz.	28
George I bring from 60s. to 80s. per oz.
George II bring about 30s. to 40s. per oz. Sets of four and six bring higher prices per oz. After this date prices drop considerably.

{177}

V

THE SPOON

{179}

CHAPTER V

THE SPOON

Early spoons and their rarity—The Apostle spoon—The seal-top spoon—The slipped-stalk spoon—The Puritan spoon—The Trifid spoon—The lobed-end spoon.

From Elizabeth to the late Georges the range of spoons is a long one, and comprehends, in the early days, classes that are prohibitive in price for the pocket of the average collector. There are spoons and spoons. From the early elaborations in Apostle, or Maidenhead, or lion-sejant forms to the later styles of rat-tail teaspoon or the fanciful caddy-spoon there is choice enough to suit the idiosyncrasies of most collectors. Indeed, it may be said that the collecting of spoons is a thing apart. Silversmiths themselves became specialists when they made spoons; the craftsmen were on a plane by themselves, and so it comes to pass that the collector, following in their wake a couple of centuries afterwards or more, has to give special study to this branch of silver plate.

It is not necessary, to trace the antiquity of the spoon, to revert to Roman days, to enumerate what has been found in Saxon graves, or to wander{180} through the mediæval period to show the use and development of the spoon. It is sufficient, in the present volume, to take spoons as found in the realm of collecting.

Practically this may be said to begin at the reign of Elizabeth, though in 1903 a set of thirteen apostle spoons was sold at Christie’s, of the reign of Henry VIII and having the London hall-mark for 1536, for £4,900. But this is sensational.

There is no doubt that the most popular spoon of the Tudor period, that is including the reigns of Henry VII (1485-1509), Henry VIII (1509-47), Edward VI (1547-53), Mary (1553-58), and Elizabeth (1558-1603), was the well-known apostle spoon. It is rare to find any examples before 1500. The oldest known is dated 1493. They were called apostle spoons because each spoon was surmounted with a figure of one of the apostles with his customary emblems, such as St. Peter with the key, St. John with the cup of sorrow, etc. They were thirteen in number to make a complete set—that is, the twelve apostles and the Master spoon, bearing an image of Jesus Christ, although the thirteenth in some cases was St. Paul. The study of apostle spoons does not begin or end with English silver. They originated on the Continent, and the goldsmiths of Nuremburg and of Paris, of Milan and of Madrid, fashioned them in like form, each according to the traditions and technique of his school.

SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY SPOONS.

SLIPPED IN THE STALK.

1651.

PURITAN.

c. 1660 (Norwich).

CHARLES II FLAT STEM.

1665.

Showing changing form of bowl and handle.

(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

It was apparently the custom in Tudor days to offer a set of these spoons, or, if the donor were less rich, a fewer number, as a christening gift.{183} Sometimes only four were given, representing the four evangelists. In modern days the gift of a christening spoon still continues, though the spoon is shorn of its former apostle head. There are many passages in the old English authors referring to this custom, and numerous references in old wills bequeathing sets of these apostle spoons as heirlooms. In Shakespeare’s Henry VIII, v. 2, Cranmer, who declares his unworthiness to act as sponsor—is met with the rebuke from the King: “Come, come, my lord, you’d spare your spoons.”

It is interesting to note the emblems usually found associated with the different apostles. The following list will enable the collector to identify the one from the other:—

St. Peter—with a key or a fish.
St. Thomas—a carpenter’s square or a spear.
St. Andrew—a transverse or saltire cross, on which he suffered martyrdom.
St. John—a cup with a winged serpent.
St. Philip—a cross of varying form, usually on a long staff.
St. Bartholomew—a large knife, because he was flayed in his martyrdom.
St. Matthew—a wallet or purse, or sometimes a spear or an axe.
St. Jude—a lance or a saw; sometimes a club.
St. James the Great—a pilgrim’s staff, as pioneer missionary.
St. Matthias—a halbert or an axe.
{184}
St. James the Less—a fuller’s pole, because he was killed by a blow on the head dealt him by Simeon the fuller.
St. Simon Zelotes—a saw, in allusion to his martyrdom.

The thirteenth is either St. Paul with a sword, or the Master spoon, with orb and cross and hand raised in blessing. Sometimes Judas Iscariot takes his place in lieu of one of the others, usually of St. Matthew with the purse; and St. Mark, in some sets, replaces St. Simon; and St. Luke occurs in lieu of St. Matthias in others.

There is no doubt that apostle spoons have been largely sought after by collectors as something desirable and antique. They have accordingly been manufactured by the thousand to meet such a demand, and young collectors cannot be too careful in accepting authenticity by word of mouth from any seller. There are always the museum examples for ready reference. They are in glass cases easy of access, and a close inspection can be made at the Victoria and Albert Museum, which is little short of actually handling the specimens. This remark applies equally to seal-top and other older forms of spoons not frequently handled by the beginner.

SEVENTEENTH AND EARLY EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY SPOONS.

APOSTLE SPOON.

St. Andrew. 1648.

SEAL-TOP SPOON.

1652.

TREFOIL-SHAPED TOP.

1703. Newcastle. Marked with Britannia and lion’s head erased.

TREFOIL-SHAPED TOP.

1703. London.

The later spoons show the commencement of form of modern bowls.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

Sets of thirteen apostle spoons are very rare. There is Archbishop Parker’s set at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and including the rare Master spoon and also St. Paul with a sword, which spoon bears the date mark for 1515, while the others are hall-marked 1566. There is the Swettenham set,{187} which belonged to the Cheshire family of that name, hall-marked 1617. The Goldsmiths’ Company have a set with the hall-mark 1626, which was presented to them some years ago by Mr. George Lambert.

We illustrate two examples of apostle spoons, one made at Exeter in 1674, representing St. Simon Zelotes (p. 189), and the other made in London in 1648, with the figure of St. Andrew with the saltire cross (p. 185).

Single specimens can be obtained, though prices range high; what could be procured for £5 ten years ago now fetches £30. Whether the war will bring prices down remains to be seen. Sixteenth-century apostle spoons realize from £30 to £90 under the hammer, according to style, age, condition, and other determining factors. Earlier spoons than the sixteenth century bring higher prices, anything from £50 to £100.

The Seal-top Spoon

Contemporary with the apostle spoons were other types. The terms now applied to them are purely collectors’ names. There was the acorn terminal, the seated lion with a shield (lion sejant), the seated owl, the pineapple, the mitre, and the head of the Virgin, which continued for a long period and is now known as the Maidenhead variety. But the most common was the seal-top with baluster ornament, which form lasted well into the seventeenth century. We illustrate an example with the London hall-mark for 1652. It will be noticed that the hall-mark appears in the bowl of the spoon. This is the leopard’s head,{188} and may be observed in all early spoons of the apostle and kindred classes.

The Slipped-stalk Spoon

During the reign of Charles I (1625-49) the bowl of the spoon began to take different proportions, and to depart from the pear-like form. It became more oval and narrower at the base and wider near the stem. But in regard to evolution of form, the modern spoon, as is readily seen, is an inversion of the bowl. It is egg-shaped, but the narrowest part is now away from the handle, whereas formerly the narrowest part was joined to the handle. All the sixteenth and seventeenth century spoons show the old form and the later spoons show the opposite. The innovation is shown in the illustration, given on page 185, of early eighteenth-century examples.

The slipped-stalk spoon was simply a radical departure from excessive ornament. It may have been on account of religious motives, it may have been by reason of economy. Obviously such a spoon cost less to produce without its terminal figure. Hence we have the slipped-in-the-stalk variety which was cut off transversely as shown in the illustration (p. 181) of an example dated 1651, during the Civil War, which form readily developed into the so-called Puritan spoon with plain, flat handle, which shortly exhibited wider ends. Of this style two examples are illustrated (p. 181).

SEVENTEENTH AND EARLY EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY SPOONS.

APOSTLE SPOON.

St. Simon Zelotes. Exeter hall-mark. Date pricked on back, 1674.

FLAT-STEM SPOON.

Trefoil top. Rat’s-tail back. Maker, probably Thomas Simpson. Exeter hall-mark 1712.

(In possession of Messrs. J. Ellett Lake & Son, Exeter.)

LOBED-END SPOON.

Showing both sides. 1679.

(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

The Trifid Spoon

This style was a passing fashion. It is obvious that such a shape with split ends was not for posterity.{191} The design was not pleasing nor was the form utilitarian. The example illustrated (p. 185) was made at Newcastle in 1703, and is marked with the figure of Britannia and the lion’s head erased. The adjacent illustration with the London hall-mark of the same date shows the form which was calculated to last for a longer period. The beginning of the eighteenth century shows the attempt of the spoon-maker to invent new forms. The Exeter example of trifid form with the hall-mark for 1712 exhibits the rat’s-tail back, merely a device in technique to strengthen the bowl, although this is found as early as 1670. In 1750 this rat-tail at the back became shorter and was known as a “crop.” Its purpose was the same, to strengthen the handle in its juncture with the bowl.

Various varieties claimed recognition for the moment. They were ornamental and essayed to fix new styles, but their day was short. They stand now as collectors’ examples. The lobed end specimen illustrated (p. 189) shows this type with ornament on the back of the bowl, which still retains its rat-tail form in subjection. It is now merely an ornament or a relic of a former style, as the handle ends abruptly and somewhat clumsily before the rat-tail commences as an adjunct or ornament. Such a fashion was not destined to live long. This has the London hall-mark for the year 1679.

The modern spoon comes in process of evolution from these earlier forms. The straight stem of apostle or seal-top days was still retained in the{192} flat Puritan form. We have seen that the bowl underwent a change in form, but the stem or handle similarly was the subject of inventive caprice. It became “wavy” in form in the time of William III. The Queen Anne type, apart from its pronounced rat-tail back, became developed in the reign of George I into a type which may be termed the Hanoverian spoon. The outline of the end is continued in a curve without a break. This is the new form which has continued to the present day. Whatever ornament was introduced, whether as additional to the bowl or to the handle, the form became established.

Simultaneously with this form, simple and utilitarian, was what is termed the “old English,” which is found in the middle of the eighteenth century. The handle was bent back and the rat-tail became a crop.

The fiddle pattern in common use to-day was a late eighteenth-century innovation. There is nothing beautiful in the ears of the fiddle pattern, which might well be lopped off.

It will be seen that the history of spoons is a long one and complicated by fashions. Nor is the study lightened by the various usages to which spoons may be put. It may readily be imagined that the use of coffee and tea brought the small spoon into commoner use. To-day the dainty spoon at five o’clock tea is a modern usage. But there is some suggestion that in eighteenth-century days the spoon of fashion was trivial in character in comparison with the larger spoons in use.

{193}

Pope, the man of the town and depicter of the beau monde, has the lines:

Or o’er cold coffee trifle with the spoon,

Count the slow clock and dine exact at noon,

suggesting the dilettante late at breakfast. Evidently the spoons were at that date made for toying and corresponded with our modern tea and coffee spoons.

Something should be said of the manner of marking spoons. The positions of the hall-marks are worthy of the collector’s notice. Before the Restoration, and for some time afterwards, the leopard’s head was placed inside the bowl, as is shown in the illustrations we give of various examples. During the reign of Charles II the style of marking may be said to be transitional. In the early years some examples have all the marks on the handle. Even towards the last years of the reign other examples have the leopard’s head in the bowl and the rest of the marks on the handle. After this the marks appear on the handle, and about 1781 they were placed at the end of the handle instead of close to the bowl, as was the former practice.

SALE PRICES

APOSTLE SPOONS.

It is impossible to fix prices. In July 1903 a set of thirteen with hall-mark for 1536 realized £4,900.

Single specimens may roughly be valued as follows: Fifteenth century, anything from £50 to £300; sixteenth century, from £30 to £100; seventeenth century, £3 to £40. Six spoons (1631) brought £280 and a pair (1622) only £7. “Fakes” are abundant in this class.

{194}

SEAL-TOP SPOONS.

Prices range from £8 to £25 apiece.

CADDY-SPOONS.

These from middle of eighteenth century are a large class, which should appeal to the collector of limited means. But even in this modest field the faker has been busy.

{199}

CHAPTER VI

THE POSSET-POT AND THE PORRINGER

The antiquity of the Posset-pot—Its national use—The Porringer—The two forms contemporary with each other—Stuart examples—The seventeenth and eighteenth century potters—The merging of the two types into the bowl.

A cold climate demands hot cordials. There was no elaborate system of hot-water pipes in the draughty, cold, and damp Elizabethan mansions with their rush-covered floors. It was a necessity, apart from long and deep potations of strong drinks, to take a nightcap or caudle-cup of something hot. In the eighteenth century the drinking of hot punch superseded this. But in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the custom of the posset of hot sack with spices and having milk and eggs, as a supper beverage was universal. Not that the posset-cup was idle in the daytime. It succeeded, even if it did not replace, the standing or loving-cup at weddings and other ceremonies. “Mix a posset for the merry Sir John Falstaff,” might, and possibly did, refer to any hour of the day, for that jovial soul did not stand on ceremony as to when he drank, so long as it was copious and oft-repeated.

{200}

That the posset-cup was of something thicker than mere spiced ale or hot wine is shown by Shakespeare’s “Thou shalt eat a posset to night at my house” (Merry Wives of Windsor). And Lady Macbeth, as a last act before the final commission of the treacherous crime, says:—

I have drugged their possets,

That death and nature do contend about them,

Whether they live or die.

We have seen that the caudle was curdled milk, with wine and hot spices, and that it was smoking hot. Shakespeare says, “We’ll have a posset for’t soon at night, i’ faith, at the latter end of a sea-coal fire.” It was undoubtedly hot, and it seems to have been, sometimes for medical reasons, made doubly so. Hence Dryden writes:

A sparing diet did her health assure;

Or sick, a pepper posset was her cure.

The object of a vessel, in the end, determines its established form. Its purpose being to receive a hot caudle, demanded that the posset-pot or cup should have a cover to keep its contents warm. Its two handles never seem to have deserted it, until it became a shallow dish or bowl for broth. These handles undoubtedly served a purpose, but the love of ornament and the balance of vessels which were always of beautiful form and perfect symmetry demanded two handles, by which design they succeeded the style of the loving-cup handed around, but it is not possible to conceive that the posset-cup was other than for personal use.

{201}

POSSET-CUP AND COVER.

London, 1679. Cover, 1660. Height 7¹/₂ in.

(By courtesy of Lord Dillon.)

CHARLES II PORRINGER.

London, 1666.

(Photograph by courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

(In possession of A. S. M. Smedley, Esq.)

{203}

In regard to early days the posset-cup has not survived. We have mainly posset-cups of the Stuart period which ran contemporary with the porringer. We might almost term this the transitional period. But the difference is apparent. Whereas the posset-cup or pot had a cover, the porringer had no cover. Otherwise in form there is little difference. But it must be borne in mind that the covered vessel was a protection against poison. When this fear was no longer prevalent the open vessel became safe.

The illustrations show the various types. They belong mainly to the Stuart period. It is not possible to give a posset-pot from which the contemporaries of Falstaff drank their caudle. We can only conjecture from frequent literary references that such vessels were in common use. Apparently they have long disappeared, as there are few Tudor examples. There is a fine posset-pot and cover, of gold, of the sixteenth century, at Exeter College, Oxford.

The earliest example illustrated is a Commonwealth porringer, with the hall-mark for 1653 (illustrated p. 197). Here evidently is a vessel open-mouthed, and there was no intention that it should possess a cover. It is of different form to the contemporary posset-cup, and was not used for the same purpose. Apparently it was for something intended to retain the heat to a lesser degree, hence the absence of the lid. It is futile nowadays to conjecture with exactitude for what purpose these vessels were used. But, presumably, the porringer was for something more solid and less stimulating.

The date of this Puritan porringer is a memorable{204} one. It belongs to the year when the Dutch were defeated off Portland in February, again off the North Foreland in June, and off Texel in July, when Van Tromp was killed. In the year of this porringer Oliver Cromwell forcibly dissolved the Rump Parliament. “Clad in plain grey clothes and grey worsted stockings,” Oliver sat in the House listening impatiently to Sir Harry Vane, till at length he could bear it no more. He rose, and after charging the House with injustice and self-interest, he cried, “Your hour is come; the Lord hath done with you.” Clapping his hat on his head, he strode into the middle of the House with “It is fit you should sit here no longer! You should give place to better men! You are no Parliament!” Thirty musketeers entered at a sign from their general, and the thirty members crowded to the door. The Speaker refused to quit his chair, till Harrison offered to “lend him a hand to come down.” Cromwell lifted the mace from the table. “What shall we do with this bauble?” he said; “Take it away!”[4]

On the same page is illustrated a Charles II posset-pot and cover, with the date mark of London for 1662, and by its side is a small porringer of the date of 1669. This was evidently for the use of a child, which is some indication that these smaller vessels were actually used for something in the nature of food, and the possibility that they derive their name from the word “porridge” is a conjecture not to be easily dismissed.

POSSET-POT AND COVER. 1683.

(With marks illustrated beneath.)

(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

The bowl of Stuart days has an ogee outline contracted{207} towards the mouth, giving it a pear-shaped form; this is common in porringers and posset-pots of the seventeenth century. In the example with the London hall-mark for 1662 the body is decorated with spheroidal swelling lozenges, giving character to the piece. The cover is plain, and heightens considerably the fine proportions, and is surmounted by a knob in baluster form. The handles are delicate and of gracefully curved form. The handles of the adjacent porringer, it will be seen, are flat. From 1653, the date of the Commonwealth porringer, to this latter small porringer, it will be seen that the handles are in a transitional stage. The upper half of the handle may be likened to a fanciful letter C, the bottom curve of which ends half-way in the interior of the handle, the handle being continued until it joins the bowl lower down. In the second example, 1662, the C stretches from the juncture of the handle with the bowl at the top to its juncture again at the lower end, the continuation of the handle below this is a slight additional outward curve. In 1669 the handle had become a letter S. The C form is slightly indicated by a break in the upper curve on the inside of the handle.

A comparison of the various forms of handle illustrated in this chapter shows that the C form in combination with the S form oscillated throughout the seventeenth century. In the elaborate posset-cup and cover of 1679 (illustrated p. 201) the S form would seem to have become established; but another example, 1683 (illustrated p. 205), shows the letter C again in strong combination with the letter S in the handle.

{208}

In 1685 the potter, we see, was troubled by no such fanciful problems. In the pot illustrated he makes a straightforward simple handle, best suited to his technique. Of the same date and illustrated on the same page (p. 213) is a fine James II posset-cup, and here the handle takes the form of the letter C, and again a second C for the lower half of the handle. By the year 1690 the letter S form handle in graceful curves had become established.

The illustration on page 201 shows a posset-cup and cover, which is produced by the kindness of Lord Dillon. In date it is 1679 and the cover is 1660. The bowl is embossed with tulips. The handles are scrolled terms and cast. The cover is a flattened dome with plain flanged edge and embossed with tulips. The knob is a casting of four grotesque faces conjoined. Its height is 7¹/₂ inches.

This cup is stated to have been presented by Charles II to his daughter, the Countess of Litchfield. The marks are “London” and I. S. in shaped shield. Mark on cover W. B. in a heart.

It will be seen in comparison with the porringer of the date of 1666, illustrated on the same page, that the caryatides handles which are similar to early Italian metal-work, are part of the handle itself, and the female bust forms the swelling curve. Here in the first example of the posset-cup the head is set as though it were a thing apart and unconnected with the design of the handle in its entirety. In the lower example of the porringer the head actually becomes full face, and consequently is merely a meaningless survival of the older form{211} and not an integral part of the design of the handle.

CHARLES II PORRINGER. 1672.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

QUEEN ANNE PORRINGER.

Exeter hall-mark, 1707. Maker, Edmund Richards. (Marks illustrated.)

(By courtesy of Messrs. J. Ellett Lake & Son, Exeter.)

The posset-pot and cover, with the London date mark for 1683, exhibits another form; its body has straighter sides. The scroll handles are similar to some of the older forms, and the woman’s head is retained. The acanthus-leaf decoration occurs on the lower part of the body, the rest being plain. Here the proportion of decorated and undecorated surface introduces another factor. It is seen on the lower portion of the Charles II porringer of the date of 1666, and it lingers in the Exeter piece of the Queen Anne period, 1707, with the addition of a decorative band three-quarters of the way up the bowl (illustrated p. 209).

In the Tudor period we have seen, in regard to the mottled stoneware tankards, that the potter and the silversmith worked in sympathy with each other. In late Stuart days it cannot be said that the silversmith and the potter had very much in common. We illustrate two specimens of the days of James II of the same date, 1685. The first is a posset-pot and cover of unusual form, with steeple-like cover and baluster terminal. This is on a high foot, and the handles have a massiveness about them not usually associated with posset-cups. The year 1685 is an important date in the art of the silversmith. The Edict of Nantes was revoked, and in consequence many hundreds of Huguenot refugees, silk-weavers and metal-workers, came to this country. The Spitalfield looms and the names of French makers on the silver plate date from this influx of foreign craftsmen.

{212}

Below this is a posset-cup made by the Staffordshire potter, racy of the soil, and far removed from the subtleties of the worker in silver. This is dated 1685, and inscribed “William Simpson His cup.” The handles, six in number, are eminently suited to the plastic clay. The convolutions of the smaller handle are suggestive of the glass-worker. Here the potter and the silversmith join hands, for the handle of the more elaborate piece is suggestive of the glass-worker too. It must be remembered that Venetian glass-workers had settled in London under the patronage of the Duke of Buckingham in the days of Charles II. It is not unnatural to suppose, seeing that the glass-blower, the silversmith, and the potter were all working in competition, that they cast an eye on each other’s work.

There is a peculiar design embodied in the work of the old glass-workers of Venice, for centuries embosomed on the lagoons at Murano, which design is taken straight from the waters of the Adriatic. There is a little denizen of those waters, delicate and of extreme beauty, only some 3 or 4 inches long, known as the sea-horse. He swims in the blue water or curls his tail around a weed. His head is like a Roman horse with arched neck. Those who know the delightful configuration of this creature, the hippocampus antiquorum, will realize the parallel. The Venetian glass-worker adapted this design, ready to hand, as the Copenhagen potters have taken the figures of birds and animals of the Baltic to give form and colour to their work. All craftsmen have{215} done this, from the ancient cave-dweller in Bordeaux who scratched the reindeer in motion which he has left for posterity to criticize, to the Japanese with their fishes and birds and insects. The short-nosed sea-horse with its beautiful and graceful form has been snatched by the glass-blower and transfused in the furnace, with skilful and adept art in manipulating the pliant metal, into a handle with conventionalized form. The arched back becomes a row of bead-like ornament in the bow of the handle, a style of ornamentation which peeps out from old Italian glass goblets, still in due subjection. When it crosses the Alps into Germany the foreign glass-worker, knowing nothing of the delicate suggestion of the origin of the ornament, straightway makes the handles into huge appendages, departing more and more from the initial source of inspiration.

JAMES II POSSET-CUP AND COVER. 1685.

Of unusual form. With inscription, “The legacy of your dear grandmother, Mary Leigh.”

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

THE POTTER AND THE SILVERSMITH. STAFFORDSHIRE EARTHENWARE POSSET-CUP.

With inscription, “William Simpson His Cup 1685.”

The glass-blower of Stuart days, a craftsman in metal, and the silver worker meet at this point, and the bead-like ornament is derivative from this old form. It is shown in simpler style in the Charles II porringer of 1672 (illustrated p. 209), and in more elaborate development in the James II posset-pot. The former is nearer to nature, and possibly nearer to the glass-worker.

The potter has similarly twisted his clay with equal swiftness and ease into convolutions similar to the glass-blower’s technique, but he has gone away from the original. With an elaboration far and above the three bends he has given to his plastic body in his handle, the German glass-blower has essayed to improve on this form, according to his{216} lights; the result is that some of the German glass consists mainly in a fine elaboration of handle.

In regard to the evolution of design, something should be said of the Exeter piece with the hall-mark of that city, 1707, straight from the days of Queen Anne. The maker of this piece was Edmund Richards. Did he know that in his crane-head handle he was perpetuating something that was to live to the twentieth century? To-day modern Japan has run the crane to death. In textiles and in metal-work the design of the crane appears again and again. It is found in scissors; we have before us an elaborate pair, made for the Great Exhibition in 1851, with crane handles, elaborately finished and gilded.

Our last illustration terminates the history of the silver vessel intended for use for posset, or caudle, or porridge, or broth. The bowl (p. 217), or, as it is termed in the old inventory which has come down with the piece, a “Plum Broth Dish,” dates from 1697, the year of the Treaty of Ryswick, when Louis XIV recognized William III as King of Great Britain and Ireland. The maker is John Bodington.

Prior to Queen Anne, this example shows all the reticence of design usually associated with the Queen Anne style. It begins a new area. The posset-pot and the silver porringer were dying or dead; the days of the punch-bowl, the tureen, and all the intricacies of the modern silver vessel for tea, for coffee, for soup, and fitted for the complexities of a more modern life, were at hand.

{217}

PLUM BROTH DISH AND LADLE. WILLIAM III. 1697.

Maker John Bodington. (Marks illustrated.)

(In possession of Messrs. Garrard.)

{219}

It is thus seen that the design of the metal-worker is perennial; it belongs to no especial period and to no particular country. The working of silver is one of the oldest arts crafts of man. “There is nothing new under the sun,” said Solomon, and although his mind was not fixed on the arts and crafts, there is an applicability about the adage. The caprice of fashion has determined for how long a period a certain form should be in use, till it was replaced by some other form—a deviation from the former or a reversion to an older form. It is the pleasure of the collector to unravel the motives which led to changes or which put a dead stop to inventiveness. Every object he examines, every specimen he owns, is another fact which stands in the long chain enabling him to pick his way from one conclusion to another. The premises are there, the data is his, if only his conclusions be sound.

SALE PRICES.

POSSET-POTS.

Prices vary considerably, according to the character of the example.

Charles II examples being from 100s. to 300s. per oz. Four examples have sold for as much as £400.

PORRINGERS.

Unique and early examples are just as expensive as posset-pots.

Charles II specimens have realized from £300 to £600.

Exceptional pieces have brought sensational prices. A Charles II example of 1661, maker I. W., sold in 1909 for £1,015 at 270s. per oz. In the same year a smaller one, made by George Gibson in 1680, sold for 330s. per oz., realizing £75.

{220}

The differences in prices discernible from Charles II to late Georgian are roughly: William III, £5 to £12 per oz.; Queen Anne, £3 to £6 per oz.; George I and II, 50s. per oz.

The faker has been active with so-called “Queen Anne” porringers, with special fluting and marked with the Britannia or higher standard mark. Collectors who have been taken in by these can have them assayed at the London Assay Office or elsewhere, and if the mark is forged there is a legal remedy.

{225}

CHAPTER VII

THE CANDLESTICK

The seventeenth-century candlestick—Early examples—The contemporary potter—Charles II examples—The eighteenth century—Queen Anne and early Georgian types—Provincial makers—The classic style—The Sheffield candlestick.

Ecclesiastical candlesticks have been in use from earliest times. The pricket form, that is with the spike for sticking the candle on, may be seen in use to-day. This form has survived in spite of its obvious inconvenience. It might have been of use for candles of great size, but even then long candles were apt to turn over if not kept upright by the attendant priests. The pricket or spike form may be at once dismissed, although older, as being outside the field of the domestic candlestick.

Whatever may have been the receptacle for candles in common domestic use in Elizabethan days, it is now lost. The candlestick has not been so fortunate as the spoon to escape the melting-pot. Even early Stuart examples are rare. Specimens of candlesticks of the first half of the seventeenth century are so rare as to be beyond the average collector’s pocket.

{226}

We are enabled to produce an early example of the time of Charles I, bearing the London hall-marks for the year 1637. This is the very year that Hampden refused to pay ship-money as taxes. Under cold and unimpassioned examination, it would appear that these patriots stood really on technicalities. The country gentleman, the man of Buckinghamshire environed by cornlands, refused to pay ship-money; that is, money to be devoted to safeguarding our coasts. The men of Devon, the men of the Kentish coasts and the Essex estuaries, the Lincolnshire ports, the Yorkshire seaboard, the city of Bristol, and estuary of the Thames guarding London, these were the fit and proper persons to pay for safeguarding the shores; the country gentleman whose thoughts could not soar above the soil, straightway became a patriot because he would not co-operate with the rest of his country in paying taxes for common defence. The Dutch could sweep the Channel and Van Tromp could carry a broom in derision at his masthead, but many of the country gentlemen of the Puritan days talked of turnips, and to resist payment of ship-money was deemed patriotic.

It will be seen that the example illustrated is simple in form. It is not so delicate as the brass candlestick of a slightly later day (illustrated p. 129). The bottom is like an inverted wine cup, and the straight pillar holds the candle. The marks on this are on the rim of the bottom, upside down, which has led some persons to suppose that the base might be used as a wine cup, which is absurd.

{227}

CHARLES II CANDLESTICKS. LONDON, 1673.

Height 11 in.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

{229}

This type is the plainest possible, and suggests that little of any value preceded it. It leaves one with queer imaginings as to what the Tudor form may have been like. But one must not be too exacting. A glance at table manners gives modern precisians a shock. There was a common dish, at which all helped themselves. The habit of putting the hands into this dish to seize bits of meat does not seem to have been regarded as objectionable. This was in the fifteenth century. There were no soup plates till about the year 1600. Nor was there any large spoon for serving from the tureen till about a hundred years later, that is about 1700.

The Lambeth delft candlestick, with coat of arms, dated 1648, is more symmetrical than the example of the silversmith. It has the platform for the grease, similar to later examples in the next reign made of gun-metal, and very heavy.

Charles II Examples

There was an extraordinary demand for silver plate in the reign of Charles II. This is indicated in the diaries of Pepys and of Evelyn. We illustrate a pair of especial beauty and delicacy (p. 227).

These candlesticks were sold at Christie’s in 1908 for £1,420. They are 11 inches in height, and they bear the London hall-mark for 1673. The barrel is short, and fluted to represent a cluster of eight small columns. The barrel is connected with a cast and vase-shaped stem, ornamented with four lobes and four acanthus leaves. The platform has voluting shells, and the base is composed of four escalop{230} shells. There is a delicacy about these candlesticks which is Italianate in character. From the barrel to the base the lines are graceful and subtle. There is nothing like them in English silver. They suggest the fanciful design of the best Japanese art, centuries before that art had penetrated Europe. Remarkable in many respects, it is representative of the joyousness and vivacity of the Restoration; they have no forbears and no successors. They are unique.

The fluted column was a form which appealed to the Carolean maker. In square bases with platforms inverted, this type departs from the fanciful curves of the pair illustrated. The straight line is predominant in the base, the platform, and the socket. Sometimes the baluster ornament of the seventeenth century is introduced in the stem.

Other late Stuart forms include the type with octagonal base, sometimes plain hammered, and deep, from which the stem springs as from a pan, and other forms with fluted column still on octagonal base, which in the later days of the seventeenth century began to be more subdued in character. By the middle of the seventeenth century the platform disappears in silver candlesticks.

An interesting specimen is the Charles II snuffers and tray, of the date of 1682. The snuffers are plain and flat and have the character of the handles of the porringer, of the date 1669 (illustrated p. 231). This flat openwork is peculiarly English, and belongs to the late Stuart period. It is exhibited on the handle at the back of the tray. The tray is as{233} reticent as the silver of the Queen Anne period of the early eighteenth century.

EARLY EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CANDLESTICKS.

QUEEN ANNE. London, 1704.

QUEEN ANNE. Exeter, 1706.

GEORGE I. 1721. Maker, John Newton, London.

(In possession of Messrs. Garrard.)

CHARLES II SNUFFERS AND TRAY. 1682.

(With marks illustrated.)

(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

The Eighteenth Century

The candlesticks of the eighteenth century vary considerably in character. The fluted column dependent on the octagonal base, with the relic of the old platform, is retained in a band with gadrooned edge. The illustration (p. 231) shows various styles, in the opening years of the eighteenth century. The baluster ornament, so common in Stuart days, was adopted, and ran through the eighteenth century, until classic influences swept it aside. This ornament, found as a terminal in silver knobs of early date, now became elongated and assumed various forms, with swelling and undulating form, sometimes with ornamented edge, till it became absorbed with the classic form of upright fluting and urn-like nozzle.

Candlesticks with removable nozzles were first introduced about 1758; the tall Corinthian column form is noticeable at this period. The urn sockets were in vogue from 1790 to 1798. It should be noted that removable nozzles when found on seventeenth-century pieces may be regarded as a later addition.

The provincial candlestick maker was not behind the London maker at the end of the eighteenth century. For instance, when the Sheffield Assay Office commenced operations in 1773 the classic style was at its height. The Adam brothers had impressed their personality on furniture and on architecture. Wedgwood had diverted Staffordshire into the paths of Olympus. Here it should be said{234} that “Sheffield plate,” so called, is not Sheffield silver plate. It is difficult to explain. Plate is the technical term we employ in regard to solid gold or silver. Plated things which may be either gold plated or silver plated, are of baser metal, more frequently copper, covered with a layer of gold or of silver. Sheffield has won a renown for her antique silver plated ware. But here we have Sheffield silver plate, that is Sheffield silver, with the marks of the assay office. We give an example (illustrated p. 235), twenty years after the granting of the charter to Sheffield. Candlesticks, silver and silver-plated, were the specialties of Sheffield, and very beautiful they are.

The ribbon festoon with knots suggests the Louis Quinze period. This indicates the departure from the stern classic types; and the nozzle is removable, a style which was then in common use.

As a study, the candlestick exhibits infinite variety. The eighteenth century, from Queen Anne to the late George III period, offers many forms. The Stuart candlestick is on another plane, and appeals to the collector of rare examples.

The candle is something dead and gone; it stands on the threshold of modernity like some dim ancestral ghost of former days. The electric bulb is triumphant, paraffin is plebeian, and gas stretches back a century when Westminster Bridge was first lit by gas in 1813. Nobody has apostrophized a gas bracket or a paraffin lamp. But the candle is both historic and poetical and the candlestick offers a pleasing field to the collector.

{235}

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CANDLESTICK.

Classic style. Made at Sheffield.

(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

{237}

SALE PRICES

Prices vary to a considerable extent. As in the case of the salt cellars, sets bring higher prices than the single examples. The differences in prices are:—

EARLY EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

Sets of four	£80	to	£100
Sets of two	40	to	70

LATE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

Sets of four	£20	to	£40
Sets of two	7	to	20

Single specimens vary from £2 to £10, according to design.

In buying candelabra at so much per ounce, beginners should carefully ascertain weight, as examples sold at 5s. per ounce have realized over £200 owing to their massiveness.

{239}

VIII

THE TEAPOT
THE COFFEE-POT
THE TEA-KETTLE
THE TEA-CADDY

{241}

CHAPTER VIII

THE TEAPOT, THE COFFEE-POT, THE TEA-KETTLE, THE TEA-CADDY

The teapot, its early form—The seventeenth century—The eighteenth-century coffee-pot—The tea-kettle and stand—Late Georgian teapots and coffee-pots—The tea-caddy and its varieties.

The silver plate of a country undoubtedly reflects the manners and customs of its users. The growth of luxury undoubtedly has had its influence upon the manufacture of a great number of silver articles employed in everyday use. But although the field be larger, the class of articles, to say nothing of the average artistic quality, differs in the same measure as the habits of the users. The antiquary of the twenty-first century who turns to the late nineteenth century will find marmalade-pots and pickle-forks in lieu of posset-pots and punch-ladles. He will find that cheap chemists have disseminated hair-brushes and cheap scent-bottles of inferior glass with silver rims.

The earliest known teapot is of the year 1670, although Pepys tells of drinking tea in 1660. This fine specimen is a lantern-shaped teapot with a history, and is illustrated page 243. It is inscribed, “This{242} Silver tea Pott was presented to ye Com^ttee of ye East India Company by ye Right Hono^le George Lord Berkeley of Berkeley Castle. A member of that Honourable and worthy Society and A true Hearty Louer of them. 1670.” It is engraved with the arms of the donor and of the East India Company. The maker’s mark is T. L., and the date letter and hall-marks of London are of the year 1670.

In the year 1690 the form of teapot was melon-shaped, still tall, and still suggestive of a coffee-pot, made more manifest by the stopper attached at the spout by a chain. But in the eighteenth century, teapots underwent a change; they began to assume styles which have endured to the present day. Since Queen Anne sat in the Orangery in Kensington Gardens with her bosom friend “Mrs. Freeman” over a dish of tea to hear of Marlborough’s victories, the habit has become established in popular favour.

The rivalry between coffee and tea and the attempt of chocolate to obtain supremacy are interesting side-lights in social history, tinctured by political bias and prejudice. Coffee claims the field first. The honour of introducing tea remains between the English and the Dutch, while that of coffee rests between the English and the French. The price of tea in 1660 was sixty shillings per pound, and Thomas Garway, tobacconist and coffee-man, was the first who retailed tea. His shop bill is the most curious and historical account of tea we have:

“Tea in England hath been sold in the leaf for six pounds, and sometimes for ten pounds the pound weight, and in respect of its former scarceness and{245} dearness it hath been only used as a regalia in high treatments and entertainments, and presents made thereof to princes and grandees till the year 1657. The said Garway did purchase a quantity thereof, the first publicly sold the said tea in leaf or drink, made according to the directions of the most knowing merchants into those Eastern countries. On the knowledge of the said Garway’s continued care and industry in obtaining the best tea, and making drink thereof, very many noblemen, physicians, merchants, etc., have resort to his house to drink the drink thereof. He sells tea from 16s. to 50s. a pound.”

COFFEE-POT. 1737.

Newcastle-on-Tyne.

(Marks illustrated p. 399.)

(In possession of Messrs. Garrard & Co.)

SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY TEAPOT. 1670.

Presented by Lord George Berkeley to the Honourable East India Company.

(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

Here is a seventeenth-century advertisement: can Mincing Lane in the twentieth century go better?

As to coffee, it is interesting to read the women’s petition to Parliament, in 1674. They complained that coffee

“made men as unfruitful as the deserts whence that unhappy berry is said to be brought; that the offspring of our mighty ancestors would dwindle into a succession of apes and pygmies, and on a domestic message, a husband would stop by the way to drink a couple of cups of coffee.”

This is in the vein of the modern Suffragist and on the same sub-head. In 1673 the men of England were fighting against the Dutch at the engagement off Texel to defend their hearths and homes, coffee or no coffee.

Apart from the peculiar lantern shape of the first examples, teapots assumed various forms. They were tall and pear-shaped about 1690. By 1707, is Queen Anne’s day, we find them gourd or melon-shaped till about 1720. In 1725 they were{246} of lesser height. From the opening years of the eighteenth century to 1765, the teapots began to assume round proportions in the body. At a later date they were octagonal. In 1776 they inclined to the Sheraton style, and in 1789 to the Hepplewhite style of design, both these latter with the straight spout.

That the handle was early of ebony is shown in the example illustrated (p. 247), with the London hall-marks of 1745, with the gourd-shaped body. There is something about this example which places it in the realm of the posset-pot. Its cover is surmounted by a cone ornament. Its form, strikingly apart from modern tea-table niceties, marks it as a collector’s piece. Its inscription is of historic interest.

A Kettle and Stand, with spirit-lamp, is of the next year, 1746 (illustrated p. 251). It is the work of the celebrated Paul de Lamerie, whose genius in working in plate placed him in the leading position among the silver designers of his period. It must be remembered that about this time the potter came into serious competition with the silversmith, especially in regard to teapots and coffee-pots. He actually did produce, in the early examples of Bow and Worcester and Coalbrookdale, teapots in blue and white with the same round body as this tea-kettle. The spout of the potter always presented greater difficulties in technique than did the spout of the silversmith. In early types of porcelain it is in form similar to the two silver examples of teapot and tea-kettle of 1745 and 1746. But the potter could not attain to the flutings and chased ornament of{249} the worker in metal. The silversmith’s spout soldered on the body, has spreading ornament eminently suitable to afford strength at the juncture.

GEORGE II TEAPOT. LONDON, 1745.

With pear-shaped body standing on graduated foot, with finely shaped ebony handle. Panel bearing inscription: “In token of sincere Friendship and in Honour of Success at the conquest of the Island of Cape Breton, Peter Warren, Esqr., Rear-Admiral of the Blue presents this piece of plate to Sir Willm. Pepperrell, Bart., Louisbourg, Commander to His Majesty’s Forces. 17 June, 1745.”

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

In Paul de Lamerie’s work there is, in the graceful convolutions of the handle and the equally delightful curves in the tripod legs, something essentially proper to his craft. No potter could emulate this work. It would be too capricious in firing, and if made in porcelain it would be too fragile for use. It is therefore of interest in comparing the potter’s work with that of his contemporary the plate-worker to see how in rivalry the masters of the latter craft surpassed the worker in clay by making the full use of their own particular technique.

In all possibility the eighteenth century teapots were taken by silver-worker and potter alike from Chinese porcelain prototypes, which must have come over in considerable numbers in the trading days of John Company, as we see that the earliest lantern example of the seventeenth century proceeded from that worthy company, and there was a great number imported from Holland. Whether this be granted or not, it may be laid down as a rough rule for guidance that whenever the silver-worker and the potter produced results closely approaching each other in form, the worker in metal was not availing himself of the best qualities of his art. He may have been following the trammels of fashion, or he may have been a mediocre worker on a lower plane.

That the potter did actually emulate the silversmith can be seen at once in the Staffordshire{250} silver-lustre teapots, which followed as far as possible the silver shapes. They were in use in cottages, and set on the dresser looked very imposing. If the squire’s lady had her silver, or the farmer’s wife her Sheffield plated set, the cottager had her lustre ware.

In the museum at Etruria are some models carved in pear-wood of urns and bowls which Josiah Wedgwood had executed for reproduction in his ware. These remarkable carved wood vessels exhibit a strong similitude to the designs of contemporary silver plate. They illustrate the point that the potter at his highest actually did look with delight on the creations of the silversmith. It was natural that he should do so, and it was equally natural that the contemplation of them should influence his own art. There is a silver teapot designed by John Flaxman (Wedgwood’s great designer). It is melon-shaped, silver gilt, chased with scrolls, medallions, and cupids riding on dolphins. It is inscribed: “Designed by John Flaxman for his esteemed friend and generous patron Josiah Wedgwood, 1784.” The maker’s mark is I.B. under a crown, and the date letter is for 1789.

KETTLE WITH STAND AND SPIRIT LAMP. 1746.

Maker, Paul de Lamerie.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

The Coffee-pot

In regard to the coffee-pot, there is an example of the date of 1686, now on view at the London Museum from the collection of Mr. H. D. Ellis. It will be seen that the coffee-pot was always tall; it never lessened its height to become possessed of the pear or gourd-shaped or circular body of its{253} rival. It actually influenced the height and form of the teapot and it was not until the end of the first quarter of the eighteenth century that the teapot threw off its similitude to the coffee-pot in regard to height; and from that date when tea-drinking had become established, it pursued its own way in design.

The chocolate-pot followed in the wake of the coffee-pot and has never departed very materially from its early form. It is always rather smaller than its prototype, and may be distinguished from the coffee-pot by the handle, which in the chocolate-pot is not set opposite the spout, as is the case in the teapot and the coffee-pot, but is in the middle, set at right-angles to the spout.

It is necessary to examine the customs of the period to arrive at conclusions in regard to silver. In 1697 the Earl of Bristol notes in his diary the payment “of a bill in full to Mr. Chambers for tea-kettle and lamp, weight ninety oz. eleven dwts., at six shillings and two pence.” These tea-kettles were probably no new thing, and, as coffee came first, were possibly a continuation of similar forms for the decoction of coffee. They were the forerunners of the tea-urns which became popular a century later (see illustration p. 325). Tea and coffee and chocolate, ale and broth, and possibly canary, were all drunk by different classes of the community at the same time. Before the introduction of the eighteenth-century teacups—first from Holland and the East and later from our own porcelain factories, in the first stages without handles—the new beverage,{254} especially in remote and unfashionable districts, was drunk from the silver porringers then in use. At the date of the Tatler the middle classes in the country were still content with milk, water-porridge, broth, ale, or small beer for breakfast. The family of John Wesley drank small beer at every meal. By the third quarter of the eighteenth century Jonas Hanway, who introduced the umbrella to England, and John Wesley, both declaimed in vain against the prevalent tea-drinking. Just as in earlier days London apprentices were to have meat in lieu of salmon, then plentiful in the Thames, so country maids accepting service in London stipulated that they were to have tea twice a day.

We are indebted to Catherine of Braganza, the Queen of Charles II, for the introduction of tea. Edmund Waller, the Court poet, who made an oration to the Puritan Parliament and saved his neck, has an “Ode on Tea” eulogizing Catherine and the herb. By the time of Queen Anne tea-drinking had become a fixed habit. Bishop Burnet, who died in 1715, drank twenty-five cups in a morning. There was Dr. Johnson at the other end of the century who drank his sixteen cups at a sitting.

COFFEE-POTS.

GEORGE III. c. 1770.

GEORGE II. c. 1730.

GEORGE III. c. 1775.

COFFEE-POTS AND TEAPOTS. LATE GEORGE III PERIOD.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

A page of teapots and coffee-pots of varying periods of the eighteenth century shows the styles in vogue (illustrated p. 255). The upper group shows a coffee-pot about 1730 with ebony handle, and rather smaller than some of the later forms. This may be compared with the Newcastle coffee-pot, of 1737, showing similar character (p. 243). This really is the established form of the coffee-pot,{257} which has lasted to the twentieth century, in spite of various deflections in style which were only transitory. By the last quarter of the eighteenth century it had become more ornate in character. Its decoration was rococo in style, and it became massive and impressive in size. It will be observed that in the specimen of about 1775, on the right, the festoons had become a prominent form of ornament. The handles in both these larger and later types are broken, with a point on the lower half turning outwards. The Edinburgh example of 1769 (illustrated p. 321) shows the same character.

An illustration of a fine coffee-pot with the London hall-mark for 1741 is given as a Frontispiece to this volume. It was made by Peter Archambo, and bears his initials P.A. in script in an oval, broken shield. The lines of this example are of exceptional grace. The proportions of the body are well balanced. The circular foot with its fine gradations adds a lightness to the design. The lid is of fine proportions, and is terminated by a plain cone ornament giving height to the piece. The handle is of ebony and of pleasing curves. The shaped spout has a terminal ornament of baluster form joined to the body, which produces an effect at once original and exquisitely harmonious.

This example is produced by the kindness of Messrs. Carrington & Co. It belongs to the stormy years of George II and the war of the Austrian Succession. Frederick of Prussia had seized the rich province of Silesia, as one of the claimants for the dominions of Maria Theresa of Austria. Carteret{258} came into power on the fall of Walpole. “What is it to me,” he said, “who is judge or who is bishop? It is my business to make kings and emperors, and to maintain the balance of Europe.” In 1743, at the Battle of Dettingen, was the last occasion an English sovereign was in the field, until His Majesty George V broke that precedent by visiting the British trenches in Flanders.

The lower group on page 255 belongs to the late George III period. The coffee-pot and teapot on the left belong to the same set. The flat, spreading knob to the lid is a form of ornament which succeeded the long-established baluster form and continued with variations to modern days, and is found in cheap Britannia metal teapots for common use in early nineteenth-century days. The others on the right exhibit novel features. The spreading mouth of the pot surmounted by an overhanging lid is a form which was readily seized by the potter. Some of the early Staffordshire teapots, notably those by Wedgwood, are in this style, as it was an easy shape for the potter to work. The spout, apart from its position low down on the body, is especially a potter’s form. The coffee-pot at the top, in urn form, with its long foot to give it the requisite height, is uncommon and did not long survive. The teapot beneath it has a stand, another innovation adopted by the potter.

EARLY FORMS OF TEA-CADDY: SQUARE AND ROUND.

GEORGE I. 1718 (EXETER).

GEORGE II. 1730 (LONDON).

LATE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY TYPES: OVAL IN FORM.

GEORGE III. 1775 (LONDON).

GEORGE III. 1784 (LONDON).

Showing evolution in form culminating in the Sheraton tea-caddy.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

The Tea-caddy

The early forms of tea-caddy were square or round. It may be imagined that so precious a beverage had{261} to be stored carefully. Hence the receptacles for tea were somewhat luxurious in character. We illustrate a square type representative of the early days of the eighteenth century (illustrated p. 259). This example was made at Exeter. The South Sea Bubble was just about to be blown at the formation of the South Sea Company to take over the national debt. Such a specimen is of rarity and is worth about £40 or £50. The round example adjacent is of London make with the hall-marks for 1730, in the opening years of George II, straight from the days when Sir Robert Walpole governed England.

The late eighteenth-century types were oval in form. The illustration of two examples (p. 259) shows this style. The left-hand one is in date 1775, and its fellow has the London hall-marks for 1784. These show very clearly the evolution in form culminating in the satinwood Sheraton variety tea-caddy so much sought after by collectors. The lines of the silversmith became coincident with the worker in rare woods. They touch at this date. If one takes Chippendale’s Director or Sheraton’s design books we can see the progress of the cabinet-maker, first in mahogany and then in satin and other beautifully coloured woods, in arriving at a casket similar in character to the silver-worker’s design.

Half-way between the early and late eighteenth century styles we illustrate (p. 263) a set of Tea-caddies and a Sugar-box, in date 1760, showing where the silversmith adhered to the higher plane of his technique, equally evading the plagiarism of the potter or the cabinet-maker. This set of three{262} vessels is indisputably metal in every inch of their construction. The bases are reminiscent of the floral refinements of the Charles II and James II periods. The bowls have a rotundity and exquisite sprightliness in form, relieved by chasing that defies the woodworker and cannot be imitated by the potter. The knobs appertain so strongly to the metal-worker that they are inimitable. This set, therefore, stands as being exceptionally interesting in exhibiting the work of the artist in silver kept on a high level apart from extraneous influences.

The later teapot cannot be said to have much to commend it, if it be with straight spout and of oval or geometric form. Oftentimes it is a woodworker’s design with additions. The cabinet-maker has not essayed to make a wooden teapot. But the silversmith has completed the hiatus. Take the tea-caddy of 1784 (illustrated p. 259), add a straight metal spout and a handle; the result is a teapot; but it can hardly lay claim to being in the first rank of design. It stands with the modern potter’s results, exceptionally fine in their own field—round, hexagonal, octagonal, oval, square, or of many other forms, all suited to his plastic art, but the silver-worker should stand on a plane apart, and in the best periods he did.

SALE PRICES

COFFEE-POTS.

Queen Anne coffee-pots realize from 50s. to 60s. per oz.

George I coffee-pots about £1 per oz., and George II from 10s. to 13s. per oz.

George III coffee-pots bring from 7s. to 10s. per oz. and George IV and William IV about 5s. or 6s. per oz.

{263}

PAIR OF GEORGE II TEA-CADDIES AND SUGAR-BOX. LONDON, 1760.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

{265}

TEAPOTS.

All teapots before George I are rare, and bring large prices.

Queen Anne teapots bring £5 to £10 per oz., and specimens sell for £50 to £80.

On the other hand George II teapots are sold from 15s. to 40s. per oz.; George II and George IV examples sell for 10s. to 15s. per oz.

TEA-KETTLES.

Queen Anne, with stand and lamp (1709), by N. Locke, sold in 1909 for 200s. per oz., £243.

George I, with stand and spirit-lamp (1715), 130s. per oz., £158.

George II, with stand and spirit-lamp (1738), 38s. per oz., £103.

TEA-CADDIES.

Queen Anne, octagonal (1710), 75s. per oz., £27.

Caddies (2) by Paul de Lamerie (1747), 160s. per oz., £243.

George III, oblong (1760), 30s. per oz., £12.

{271}

CHAPTER IX

THE CASTER, THE CENTRE-PIECE, THE SUGAR-BOWL, THE CREAM-PAIL, AND THE CAKE-BASKET

The Queen Anne and Early Georgian Caster—Its evolution in form—The eighteenth-century Centre-piece—The Sugar-bowl—Classic influence—Late eighteenth-century silver bowls with glass liners—The Cream-pail—The Cake-basket—Pierced and interlaced work—The eighteenth-century potter.

The classes referred to in this chapter embrace the most delightful of the eighteenth-century silver plate, and appeal intimately to the decorative instincts of the collector. The pieces range from the utilitarian caster capable of varied ornament, to the elaborate table centre, an object of exquisite grace and capable of rising to perfection in the hands of an accomplished craftsman. Pierced work of great delicacy was a feature of the eighteenth-century decoration. As with furniture, the silver in the middle of the century began to grow complex in its character, in keeping with the growth of luxury. The century which began with the sober furniture and homely interiors of Queen Anne, closed with the{272} magnificence of Chippendale and the subtleties of Sheraton.

The Caster

The caster can be traced in an unbroken line as an article of table use from the end of the seventeenth century to the present day. Even with so simple an object, apparently incapable of much variation in form, it is interesting to note the successive stages of fashion and the different phases of its history.

At first it was of lesser height. The examples illustrated on pages 269 and 277 show this. The straight cylindrical form, illustrated on page 269, similar to that made by Christopher Canner, appears to have been the earliest type, and this lasted from about 1680 for a quarter of a century. There is a set of three Charles II casters of this style made by Anthony Nelme in 1684. There is also a simple form about the opening of the eighteenth century with plain round top. A fine Irish example, made by George Lyng, and marked with the Dublin hall-marks for 1699 (illustrated p. 331), shows a more ornate character not infrequent in Irish silver. The Irish silversmith was often ahead of his English contemporaries. By 1712 the Queen Anne caster was becoming taller and the body retained the band found in the straight cylindrical form. The cover offered a field for delightful and varied patterns in pierced work. There is a charm about these individual patterns which is irresistible to the collector. The cover is surmounted by a baluster knob which it retained throughout the successive changes in the{275} body. These ornaments are delicately symmetrical, and in one instance coming under the writer’s observations the knob was a miniature of the caster it crowned. The marks on casters are placed at the top of the neck near the cover.

GEORGE II CASTER. EXETER, 1728.

Maker, Richard Freeman.

(In possession of Messrs. J. Ellett Lake & Son, Exeter.)

In 1730, at the Court of Wardens at the London Assay Office, it was laid down that the marks be struck as far distant from each other as possible, so that the series of marks could not be cut out in one piece and soldered into another piece. It had been found that it was “an antient practice among evil-disposed goldsmiths” of converting new plate into old by this means.

Variations in the body took place; sometimes the band around took an octagonal form and the concave body above and the convex body below followed this geometric form in their curve. There is an example of this type with the hall-marks for London for 1716, and the maker’s mark A. D. in shield, wrought by Charles Adam. This is among the Chester Corporation plate.

The George II sugar caster with the Exeter hall-marks for 1728, made by Richard Freeman, is unique. Its beautifully shaped body is exquisitely suited to the technique of the metal-worker. The plain band at base and the graduated foot carry out the symmetrical form, and help to give effect to the cover with its delightful pierced ornament. It will be observed that this pierced design is exactly in keeping with the reticence of the rest of the piece, and the baluster knob, almost acorn-like in form, completes a very fine piece of craftsmanship.

{276}

The progress in form from the days of George II to the end of the century is shown in the group illustrated on page 277. These casters, as will be noticed, are all circular in body, and do not include geometric forms. The George II example (1747) was the fixed type from George I to the early years of George III. A Scottish example of a sugar caster (illustrated p. 317), having the Edinburgh hall-marks for 1746, shows this established form. At the latter end of the reign of George II and in the early years of George III, from 1760, it is noticeable that the body swells in bulbous form, increasing in height from the foot. The next example (1771) shows the new top, pear-shaped; the swelling lower part of the body is still pronounced and the foot is taller, as in the cream-jugs of the period. In both these George III examples the cover is surmounted by a pine-cone knob.

CASTERS.

WILLIAM III. 1701.

GEORGE II. 1747.

GEORGE III. 1760.

GEORGE III. 1771.

1. The plain form with circular top.

2. The fixed type from George I to early George III.

3. The swelling body increasing in height from foot; the pine-cone top.

4. The new pear-shaped top. The swelling lower part of body leaving foot as in cream-jugs of the same period.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

EARLY GEORGE III CENTREPIECE 1761.

Height, highest part, 14¹/₂ in. Diameter 20¹/₂ in.

EARLY GEORGE III CENTREPIECE. c. 1775.

Maker’s mark, T.F.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

The Centre-piece

The caster never attempted to be other than reticent. It was like a poor relation at the table in company with the magnificence of the centre-piece. The pierced work in subdued ornament pales before the elaboration in such a centre-piece as that illustrated on page 279, with the London hall-marks for 1761. The basket is of elaborate and graceful form, and the eight branching candlesticks mark it as a sumptuous specimen. The feet are elaborate and in rococo style. It belongs to the early years of George III, of Garrick, of Macklin, and of Foote. It was contemporary with the enormous head-dresses,{281} the subject of so many caricatures, which followed the indecorous hoop-petticoats of the dissolute days of George II. Paste and plaster and powder raised these head ornaments to a superstructure representing chariots, and a fureur des cabriolets, related by Horace Walpole. Men had them painted on their waistcoats, and women stuck a one-horse post-chaise on the top of their elaborate head-dress, which said head-dress was not changed for some weeks. Medical men of the day speak of this in terms which we will not introduce here. Sir Joshua Reynolds had commenced to paint his immortal portraits, Handel had found congenial soil under the House of Hanover to settle here, providing satirists with subjects as to his gluttonous habits, and producing music that has become English to those who like oratorio. Thomas Chippendale had published his Director in 1754, with its wonderful designs; and Robert Adam, in 1758, had put his screen and gateway across the Admiralty in Whitehall, and was translating dull London streets into classic style. These were the nights at the “Turk’s Head” with Dr. Johnson, the supporter of the Royal House, the upholder of purity and piety in an impure and irreligious age, Burke with his flashing conversation, and Goldsmith and David Garrick, and a circle of men who counted for more than the macaronis and the fops of Pall Mall and St. James’s Street. Wealth was pouring into the country from India, and with it came rapidly acquired habits of luxury—habits that quickly reflected themselves in the furniture and domestic appurtenances. This silver centre-piece of{282} 1761, therefore, tells the story of these days of the eighteenth century, “remarkable for the great industrial revolution, which gradually transformed England from an agricultural to a manufacturing country, depending for food supplies on foreign countries.”

A second examination of the silver centre-piece, 1761, with the above notes in view, at once discloses its character—out of France and of Italy, with here a touch and there a touch from continental styles. If trivial toys such as the pantin, a pasteboard figure on strings, could take the town by storm, the craftsman in metal, with fashions streaming from over the Channel, could not and did not hold aloof. Traditional features linger or become rejuvenated, such as the sconces of the candlesticks which revert to the leaflike form of those of Charles II. The basket with interlaced work stands parallel with the similar work in porcelain from the Meissen factory with raised flowers at each intersection, just as in this silver centre-piece, and the old Saxon factory made this type of vase and basket as early as 1740 in the “Krinolinengrappen” period. But the feet might have come straight out of Chippendale’s Director, with their curves and shoulders and peculiar style. If Chippendale borrowed wisely from the cabinet-maker of France, the English silversmiths, many with French blood in their veins, found in French design something too alluring to ignore.

SUGAR BOWL.

With London hall-marks, 1773. Made by S. & J. Crespell. (Marks illustrated p. 377.)

(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

SUGAR BOWL AND CREAM-PAILS.

Pierced sheet silver with blue glass liners.

LONDON, 1782.

LONDON, 1786.

LONDON, 1776.

(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

Take another centre-piece, about 1775 in date (illustrated p. 279). Here are features equally interesting. The rococo form has become subdued. There{287} are still branching curves, and plain baskets with interlaced work take the place of the floriated style candle-holders. The festoons with medallions indicate the classic style then in vogue. In this centre-piece the classic style is seen in combination with, almost in opposition to, the moribund rococo style. These may be compared with an earlier Irish centre-piece, 1740 in date (illustrated p. 335).

The Sugar-bowl

In the specimen illustrated (p. 283) the classic style is seen at its best. The body is decorated with festoons, rosettes, and the rim and foot have a plain bead ornament. The handles are snakes with the head terminating at the rim of the bowl. It suggests that it might be a bowl of Æsculapius rather than a homely sugar-bowl. Pompeii and Rome, translated through the brain of Sir William Hamilton, the Brothers Adam, and the metal-worker of the Louis Seize period, have each contributed to this composite style. It is not of the purity of form of silver vessels found in the tombs. It merely borrows ornament from classic originals; it is like Sir Bulwer Lytton’s translation of Horace, rather more Sir Bulwer than Horatius Flaccus. In date this is 1773 and was made by S. and J. Crespell. It belongs to the same period as the Sheffield silver candlestick illustrated on page 235.

There is another sugar-bowl (illustrated p. 285), with the London hall-marks for 1786, showing the style Louis Seize à l’Anglaise which came into English cabinet design after 1793, when Sheraton published{288} his book of designs. This is an exceptionally dainty piece of work. The classic influence is still to be observed, but changed into something more sprightly, savouring of the boudoir of Marie Antoinette, and the metal-work on tables and lock escutcheons in the Petit Trianon. It is especially a silversmith’s piece. It is a beautiful metal framework for a blue glass liner.

The Cream-pail

Taller vessels with a handle are usually termed cream-pails, though some collectors believe they were used for sugar. As they are of cut work they must have been used with a glass liner. They present some beautiful forms still clinging to classic ornamentation in combination with whatever new forms the craftsman could invent in conjunction with a severe style. The two illustrated (p. 285) show slightly differing intentions. The first on the right, with the London hall-marks for 1776, with its undulating top is in keeping with the wavy rims of the salt cellars of the same period, of French influence. The festoon of drapery with rosettes is in classic style and the foot and lower body has the traditional acanthus-leaf decoration. The handle and broad cut pattern ornamenting the body may be compared with the Irish example (illustrated p. 343), made in 1770.

BREAD-BASKETS WITH HANDLES. LONDON, 1745-1775.

Wire and sheet silver with cast and chased ornament.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

The other example on the same page (p. 285) is in date 1782, the year when, after three years’ siege of Gibraltar, the French and Spanish made a supreme effort by sea and land to win the key of the Mediterranean,{293} but were beaten with heavy loss by General Eliot. The festoons and the vase in panel are now in incised decoration and are subservient. The style begins to break away from traditional severities and establish something original and as reticent as the classical forms without being so coldly formal and unnational.

CAKE-BASKET. 1761.

Maker, Edward Romer.

(In possession of Messrs. Garrard & Co.)

WEDGWOOD CREAM-WARE BASKET.

(In collection of author.)

The Bread-basket

The last half of the eighteenth century saw the growth and development of pierced sheet silver with its varied styles, and concomitant with the sheet work there are examples exhibiting a fine perfection in wire work. Pierced bread- or cake-baskets with cable band are features of this period. The pierced mustard-pot, decanter stand, and other similar articles were common. Oval pierced baskets were introduced, with handles, in the reign of George II (1727-60). Originally they were possibly for bread only. Some collectors determine this by the pattern on some of them of wheat-ears (see example illustrated p. 289). By the time of George III they were elaborately pierced and chased and massive, and had feet. In other examples about the middle of the century they had no feet, and were more basket-like in form. There was an example in the Dunn-Gardner collection of a bread-basket in imitation of wicker basket-work. This bears the London hall-marks for the year 1733 and the maker’s initials P. L., a crown and star above, and a fleur-de-lis below, for Paul de Lamerie, the maker.

The page of four examples (p. 289) illustrates{294} the types prevalent from 1745 to 1775. The top left-hand specimen is of wire work ornamented by wheat-ears.

A plain cake-basket with the London mark for 1761, the first year of the reign of George III, is illustrated (p. 291); the maker is Edward Romer. Below this is shown a contemporary Wedgwood cream-ware basket in imitation of wicker-ware. Here the technique of the silversmith and the potter may be compared.

The Eighteenth-century Potter

In connexion with pierced and interlaced work the potter did attempt to run side by side with the worker in silver plate. The two Wedgwood pieces (illustrated p. 295) show this parallel. The upper one is a chestnut basket and cover. While adhering in a measure to the strict technique of the worker in clay—and here be it said it comes near to the fine reticulated work of some of the highest Chinese porcelain—it, at the same time, approaches the contemporary refinements in perforated sheet metal executed by the silversmith.

The lower example is even more remarkable; it is a Wedgwood cream-ware fruit-basket and cover. This centre-piece, though not emulating the grandiose proportions and elaborate branches of the silver centre-pieces such as we have seen, accomplishes what was apparently impossible, the manipulation of plastic clay as though it were silver wire. The result is delightful and surprising. In regard to the elaboration of this cut-and-drawn work, the Leeds{297} potters who followed Josiah Wedgwood’s style produced tall centre-pieces in cream-ware with branches having baskets and trays. It is an undoubted proof that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

WEDGWOOD CREAM-WARE PERFORATED CHESTNUT-BOWL.

Late eighteenth century.

WEDGWOOD CREAM-WARE PERFORATED DESSERT-BASKET.

Late eighteenth century.

THE POTTER AND THE SILVERSMITH.

SALE PRICES

CASTERS.

Ordinary Queen Anne examples bring 50s. to 60s. per oz.; George I and George II, 25s. to 35s. per oz.; George III and George IV, 18s. to 20s. per oz. Later specimens only fetch 5s. to 12s. per oz.

Rare and earlier examples bring higher prices, e.g.:

	£
William and Mary (1701), 225s. per oz.	112
Queen Anne (2), (1713), 115s. per oz.	72

SUGAR-BOWLS.

The average prices are roughly as follows: George I, 60s. to 80s. per oz.; George II, 20s. to 50s. per oz.; George III, 8s. to 50s. per oz. (varying from engraved and fluted to pierced and applied ornament); George IV, 7s. (fluted) to 35s. per oz. (pierced and applied ornament); William IV, 6s. to 20s. per oz.

Exceptional pieces of course bring exceptional prices. A sugar-basket of 1725, by Paul Lamerie, sold in 1909 for £113, at 195s. per oz. A set of three George III (1763) sugar vases and covers were sold at the Ashburnham Sale in March 1914, for £214, at 135s. per oz.

{333}

CHAPTER XII

IRISH SILVER

The ancient art of the silversmith—The seventeenth century—The inventiveness and originality of the Irish craftsman—Eighteenth-century marks—The figure of Hibernia—The Harp and Crown—The Potato or Dish Ring.

There is no doubt that the art of the goldsmith and silversmith was practised at a very early period in Ireland, as the various ornaments discovered in excavation clearly prove. There is something characteristic in this early Irish metal work, as especially noteworthy in its ripe and accomplished art as is the illumination in the Book of Kells. Old records show that goldsmiths were working in Dublin in the thirteenth century, though there is no mention of the actual formation of a guild or company till 1498. Apparently these early records do not determine what marks were in use. It is not till 1605 that mention is made of a maker’s mark and a town mark on Dublin plate. In 1637 a charter was granted to the goldsmiths of Dublin by Charles I, and it was laid down that no gold or silver was to be of less fineness than the standard of England. From 1638 onwards there appears to have{334} been a date letter, though in some cases its use was erratic, the same stamp being used for succeeding years.

In 1729 the Irish Parliament enacted that plate should be assayed by the assay master and bear the maker’s stamp, the harp crowned, and the date letter. In 1730, by the order of the Commissioners of Excise, a fourth stamp was added, the figure of Hibernia, to denote that the duty had been paid. In 1807 the sovereign’s head was ordered to be placed on all plate as a duty mark, and the figure of Hibernia was allowed to remain, so that till 1890, when the duty was taken off silver, the two duty marks ran together. But Hibernia may be regarded as a hall-mark, though that was not its original purpose.

The city of Cork never had a date letter. Prior to 1715 the city arms, a ship in full sail between two castles, was used together with the maker’s mark, which latter embodied some heraldic device. Later the only mark used at Cork was the maker’s initials and the word Sterling, or the word Dollar; this took the place of the town mark. The official guide to the Irish metal work at the Dublin Museum, to which we are indebted for much information, states that “Immense quantities of silver were manufactured in Cork during the eighteenth century, but comparatively little remains at the present day, most of it having been melted down as the fashions changed.”

CENTREPIECE. DUBLIN, 1740.

Maker, Robert Calderwood.

(The design of a Potato Ring by same maker is shown on cover of this volume.)

[Transcriber's Note: The design did not appear on the cover of this edition.]

(At the Metropolitan Museum, New York.)

The word “dollar” alludes to the silver that was used for plate, much of it being obtained from Spanish dollars. This is parallel to the usage on the coinage. The word “Portobello” is found on{337} English silver coined about the year 1739 from silver taken at Portobello by Admiral Vernon; and the word “Lima” on George II gold coins, signifying that they were from bullion captured from the Spaniards at that place. Anne’s guineas, of 1703, have the word “Vigo,” relating to Sir George Rooke’s captures. At the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century, silver coins were so scarce that Spanish dollars were made legal tender with the head of George III stamped on them.

In the early nineteenth century the Dublin marks appear added to the Cork mark Sterling. The following are among some of the Cork marks found: Sterling and maker’s mark, C. T. (Carden Terry) about 1780. Sterling and maker’s mark

C T
I W

(Carden Terry and John Williams), about 1800.

And there is Robert Goble, 1694, a piece of whose delightful work we illustrate with marks; the Cork mace at the Victoria and Albert Museum, a specimen of beautiful craftsmanship, is marked with the Cork castle and ship, and the letters R. G. There is also Jonathan Buck, 1764, and a fine cream-jug of his superb work is illustrated (p. 339).

Besides Dublin and Cork there were other places at which silver was assayed and marked: at Limerick, in the seventeenth century, with the mark of the fleur-de-lis; Youghal in the seventeenth century, with the town mark of a single-masted ship. In 1783 a small village near Waterford, termed New Geneva, owing to a company of Geneva watch-makers having settled there, had an assay office for{338} a few years, mainly for watch-cases. The harp was used in their mark. Clonmel, Waterford, Mullinger, Kinsale, Kilkenny, and Drogheda all made plate which was assayed at Dublin.

The oldest piece of Irish hall-marked plate now existing is a flagon in Trinity College, Dublin, bearing the Dublin hall-mark for 1638.

The caster (illustrated p. 331) is in date 1699, and bears the Dublin hall-marks for that year and the maker’s initials G. L. (George Lyng). Marks illustrated page 409. This example is interesting as showing the type of art existing contemporary with English work. The grace and elegance of this caster stamp it as being the work of a practised artist, and though doubtless English fashions did affect the class of articles made, the native skill in the subtle use of ornament and the perfection of symmetry was in strong evidence across the Irish Channel.

A loving-cup with two handles, in harp form, was made by Robert Goble, of Cork, about 1694, (illustrated p. 331). These cups are peculiarly Irish and were made nowhere else, except when the English silversmith or the Sheffield plateworker copied them. The harp to this day has remained symbolic of Erin, and Beleek teacups of delicate egg-shell porcelain sometimes have a harp handle.

Throughout the eighteenth century a great number of these two-handled harp cups were made. They have a fine bold form and evidently fulfil the object for which they were made. The marks as shown in the specimen illustrated are usually at the top of the body near the rim.

{339}

CREAM-JUG. CORK, 1764.

Fine chased and repoussé work. Signed under lip, “Jonathan Buck, 1764.”

(Marks illustrated p. 409.)

CREAM-JUG. DUBLIN, c. 1740.

Maker, John Hamilton. Finely chased and embossed decoration.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Harris & Sinclair, Dublin.)

{341}

In the year 1740, when Frederick of Prussia seized the rich country of Silesia, young Oliver Goldsmith sat at the feet of his schoolmaster, that old soldier of fortune, Thomas Byrne, who had served with our army in Spain. He listened to “the exploits of Peterborough and Stanhope, the surprise of Monjuich, and the glorious disaster of Brihuega,” and he lent an ear to the stories of “the great Rapparee chiefs, Baldearg O’Donnell and galloping Hogan.” At fifteen he entered Trinity College, Dublin, as a poor scholar. To-day he rests on College Green, one of Ireland’s proud monuments. At this date the silversmith was doing great things; the Metropolitan Museum at New York has a fine centre-piece of these far-off days. It will be seen in the illustration (p. 335) to what refinement the art of the Dublin silversmith had attained. The maker is Robert Calderwood, and in such a specimen claims recognition for craftsmanship of a very high order. His mark is R. C. with a small crown between the letters, and his work is always prized by collectors.

A cream-jug, made by John Hamilton, of Dublin about the same date (illustrated p. 339), may be compared, to the advantage of the Irish craftsmen, with work of the same period wrought in England or Scotland. There is a suggestion in the handle of the old harp design of the loving-cup, but the rich chasing and exquisite ornamentation of the body exhibit the finest touches of the silversmith’s art.

On the same page a fine cream-jug made by Jonathan Buck of Cork, in 1764, is illustrated, and the marks are given on page 409. It is minutely{342} signed in full under the lip, “Jonathan Buck, 1764.” The mark has a buck in a shield. The handle in this piece still lovingly adheres to the harp form, delightfully adapted to this graceful vessel. We may conjecture that this was a wedding gift to some bride, as the figures of the goddess Venus and Cupid are in fine relief. Such an example is unique with its elaborate chased and repoussé work.

The cream-pail (illustrated p. 343) is of Dublin make, about 1770. There is strong classic influence. The drapery, the medallion rosette, and the key pattern of the incised work, all tell of the prevailing fashion. It is as classic as the doorways on the Quays at Dublin. But there is a robustness in Irish classicism which establishes it as something not merely copied as a prevailing fashion but embodied in the handiwork of the craftsman. Perhaps the Latinity of the old faith imparted a cosmopolitan kinship to the metal-workers and carvers and art craftsmen of Ireland. They always realized to the full continental fashions when the wave of importation reached their shores. The delights of Gallic or Italian artists became at once acclimatized.

The potato ring or dish stand is a form of Irish silver not made elsewhere. They were rings of metal upon which old Oriental bowls were placed to prevent the hot vessel injuring the polished surface of the mahogany table. They were possibly used later to support wooden bowls for holding potatoes. Genuine Irish examples are always circular. They belong to the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Bowl and dish were synonymous terms in those days,{345} hence they are sometimes called “Dish Rings.” There are three types: (1) The plain pierced. (2) Pierced work, ornamented with flowers and birds and pastoral scenes. (3) Basket work formed of round wire twisted, or flat square wire strips interlaced.

CREAM-PAIL. DUBLIN, c. 1770.

Maker, Will Hughes. Contemporary ladle by another maker.

(Marks illustrated p. 409.)

(By courtesy of Messrs. Harris & Sinclair, Dublin.)

On the cover of this volume is illustrated an example of a typical Irish dish ring, kindly lent by Messrs. Carrington & Co. [Transcriber's Note: This illustration did not appear on the cover of this edition.] This is in date about 1760, the last year of the reign of George II. The maker is Robert Calderwood. It is representative of the pierced type, having exquisite chased work with birds and flowers. Such pieces are only found, as a rule, in well-known private collections or on the shelves of museum cases. The year before it was fashioned in Dublin, General Wolfe had captured Quebec, and in September 1760 Montreal had capitulated, completing the conquest of Canada.

The following Makers’ Marks will be of interest to those possessing old Irish silver as of use in determining dates of Dublin silver; and specimens bearing these initials are to be seen in the Dublin Museum:—

1655, D. B. (Daniel Bellingham); 1657, I. S. (John Slicer); 1680, W. L. (Walter Lewis); 1715, J. T. (John Tuite); 1716, J. W. (Joseph Walker); 1717, I. H. (John Hamilton); 1724, M. W. (Matthew Walker); 1725, I. S. (John Sterne); 1743, R. H. (Robert Holmes); 1748, W. W. (William Williamson); 1748, W. K. (William Knox); 1750, C. S. (Christopher Skinner); 1760, G. B. (George Beere); 1763, I. L. (John Laughlin); 1765, S. W. (Stephen Walsh); 1765, W. T. (W. Townshend); 1770, D. K. (Darby{346} Kehoe); 1771, C. H. (Capel Harrison); 1772, T. L. (Thomas Lilly); 1773, C. T. (Charles Townshend); 1775, T. J. (Thomas Jones); 1776, R. W. (Robert Williams); 1780, I. N. (John Nicklin); 1790, W. L. (William Law); 1802, R. B. (Robert Breading); 1819, I. L. B. (James le Bas).

SALE PRICES

POTATO OR DISH RINGS.

Large prices have been paid for these examples of Irish silver with scroll work, pastoral scenes, fruit, and flower subjects, and pierced trellis decoration.

They realize prices varying from £50 to £250, and fine early examples bring even more. The following prices have been given for examples: 1757, £129; 1760, 230s. per oz., £98; 1772, 188s. per oz., £136; 1786, 200s. per oz., £164.

{347}

APPENDIX
TO
CHAPTER I

The following Tables are intended to be of practical use to the student of Old Silver, and they are arranged in a convenient form for reference.

I.	Tables showing Date Letters used at the London Assay Office from 1598 to 1835 (pages 351-355).
II.	Table showing Differences of Shields in Hall Marks, Standard Marks, and Date Marks of London Assay Office, from the Accession of Queen Elizabeth to the present day (page 357).
III.	Series of Examples showing Types of Marks found on authentic specimens of Old Silver assayed in London during the above period (pages 359-385).
IV.	Series of Examples from Silver assayed at Exeter, Chester, Norwich, York, Newcastle, Birmingham, and Sheffield (pages 387-399).
	Scottish and Irish Marks are also given (pages 401-409).

{349}

I

TABLES SHOWING
DATE LETTERS

Used at London Assay Office.
1598-1835

II

TABLE SHOWING
DIFFERENCES IN SHIELDS

In London Hall Marks,
Standard Marks and Date Marks,
From Elizabeth to George V {351}

TABLE of London Assay Office Annual Date Letters.

1598-1617.

1618-1637.[5]

1638-1657.

1658-1677.

The shape of the shields used is shown in Table II.

[5] These and subsequent alphabets follow entries in the minutes of the Goldsmiths’ Company, and were verified from pieces of plate by Mr. Octavius Morgan. (See p. 38.)

{353}

TABLE of London Assay Office Annual Date Letters.

1678-1696.

1696-1715.

1716-1735.

1736-1755.

The shape of the shields used is shown in Table II.

† These letters have been verified by me from pieces of old silver.—A. H.

{355}

TABLE of London Assay Office Annual Date Letters.

1756-1775.

1776-1795.

1796-1815.

1816-1835.

The shape of the shields used is shown in Table II.

{357}

TABLE showing DIFFERENCES IN SHIELDS in London Hall-Marks, Standard Marks, and Date Marks from Queen Elizabeth to George V.

* This Foreign Mark was only used from 1876 to 1904. For subsequent Foreign Marks see p. 63.

{359}

III

EXAMPLES SHOWING
TYPES OF MARKS [7]

Found on Authentic Specimens
Of Old Silver Assayed in London
From the Reign of Elizabeth
To the Present Day

{360}

III

LONDON MARKS

1558 to 1577

(Twenty letters are used, omitting J.)

The earlier letters of this alphabet were impressed with a stamp following the outline of the shape of the letter. Later a shield was used. The type of this date letter is Black Letter Small. Similar type was used from 1678 to 1696, and the shields are the same shape. This type was again used in the reign of Victoria from 1856 to 1875, but the shield is different.

1578 to 1597

(Twenty letters are used, omitting J; and the U is of the same form as the V, which was followed in succeeding alphabets till the year 1735.)

Roman Capital Letters are used at this period. The lion and leopard’s head are in a stamp following the outline, a practice which continued till 1678. From 1716 to 1735, in the reign of George I, a similar alphabet was used with shields of the same shape; but the first four years have the figure of Britannia and lion’s head erased, the Higher Standard Mark. In 1720 the lion and leopard’s head with a new shape of shield clearly indicate the difference.

1598 to 1617

Lombardic Capitals are used in this alphabet. The peculiarities in this series are the letter A with its crossbar (1598), the letter C (1600), which is a D reversed, and the letter G (1604).

1618 to 1637

The letters used are Small Italic. The shields are slightly longer and pointed at bottom. The noticeable letters puzzling to beginners are b (1619), similar to h (1625), l (1628), and s (1635). The l (1628) is similar to the s (1753).

{361}

LONDON MARKS

1564

1578

1606 Beaker (illustrated p. 121).

1631 Maker, William Shute.

1637 Candlestick (illustrated p. 223).

{363}

LONDON MARKS

THE COURT HAND ALPHABET

1638 to 1657

CHARLES I. AND COMMONWEALTH

The next alphabet used at the London Assay Office for annual date letters is of a peculiar type known as the Court Hand. Most of the letters are of a character which has not survived in modern usage and they are of a form dissimilar to any other. This Court Hand was employed from the year 1638 to 1657, that is during the latter half of the reign of Charles I and during the Commonwealth up to 1657.

This series of characters was again used from 1696 to 1715, that is to say during six years of the reign of William III, the whole of the reign of Queen Anne, and for the first two years of George I.

Two very important periods are thus covered by these two Court Hand alphabets. It should not be difficult to avoid confusing the one period with the other, as there are other factors which determine which is the latter series. The leopard’s head and the lion are, from 1697 to 1720, replaced by the figure of Britannia and the lion’s head erased.

The illustration of both series of Court Hand letters on pages 351 and 353 will enable readers to identify them more readily.

The examples illustrated on page 365 are, in conjunction with the maker’s mark, the leopard’s head, and the lion passant, for the period 1638 to 1657.

A comparison may be made with the later Court Hand characters, where examples will be found illustrated on page 373.

{364}

1638 to 1657

Among the difficulties presented by this Court Hand, the following letters are likely to give trouble in identification owing to their similarity in shape, which becomes more pronounced when the letters are worn and the details slightly obliterated. The a (1638) may be mistaken for the i (1646); the b (1639) is not unlike the letter h (1645); and the k (1647) resembles the letter b (1639), which with its peculiar form, when worn, is only distinguishable by the bar across the centre. A worn letter d (1641) is apt to resemble an s (1655).

In examining the letters under a glass, care should be taken to see that they are not upside down, as in some instances they often resemble others. The shape of the shield is usually clearly enough defined to show the pointed base.

Although these letters are so extremely puzzling, especially to beginners, it should be borne in mind in comparison with the similar Court Hand alphabet which was used later from 1696 to 1715, that the date marks are only confirmatory. In the later series there is the difference in the omission of the lion passant and the leopard’s head, replaced by the figure of Britannia and the lion’s head erased. But the character of the silver itself tells its own story in cases where date marks and standard marks happen to be wholly obliterated. A piece of Queen Anne plate differs so essentially in style from a piece of Charles I or Cromwellian that it should be impossible to fall into any error in mistaking the one for the other.

{365}

LONDON MARKS

1638 Salt Cellar (illustrated p. 151).

1640

1648 Apostle Spoon (illustrated p. 185).

1653 Porringer (illustrated p. 197).

1654

{367}

LONDON MARKS

1658 to 1696

CHARLES II, JAMES II, WILLIAM AND MARY

This period covers the late Stuart silver—Charles II, James II, and the major portion of the reign of William III.

The period represents a renaissance in the styles, and there is a noticeable rejuvenance in the specimens still preserved. For example, see candlesticks illustrated (page 227).

But it must be remembered that during the Charles I period in the days of the Civil War much of the silver was melted down to enable the king to use it in striking the coins of the realm.

Similarly in the reign of William III the old silver was called in by the Royal Mint to be melted down to convert into coin of the realm, for reasons which we have explained elsewhere. On account of the depredations of the coin-clippers much of the fine old silver of the reigns of Charles II and James II was destroyed. In consequence, the silver of the reigns of Charles I, Charles II, and James II is of considerable rarity.

With the opening of the eighteenth century, or, to be exact, from 1697 to 1720, the Higher Standard was obligatory, and with this departure, and the fashions of Queen Anne, a new period of silver is entered. Collectors are divided into schools according to their predilections. To one, nothing later than Elizabeth offers any interest. To another, early Stuart silver affords charms which no later period can supplant. Again, to others the Queen Anne period is the be-all and end-all of their ambitions in collecting.

{368}

1658 to 1677

In this alphabet the peculiarities are the letters C (1660) and E (1662), which are only distinguishable from each other by the cross-bar to the letter E. The letter G is an exceptional form (1664), and is shown on the opposite page. O (1671) is also an unusual form. Letters T (1676) and L (1668) are somewhat similar in form, and may easily be mistaken for each other in worn examples.

The letter H (1665) is illustrated as the mark on a wine-cup (page 129).

1678 to 1696

In the year 1679 an oblong shield was used for the lion, as shown on page 357. This mark is taken from the Sumner Salt in the Mercers’ Company Hall, illustrated page 155. The letter E is found on a Snuffers and Tray, illustrated page 231, and the letter F on a Porringer (1683), illustrated page 205. The letter H (1685) is shown on the opposite page.

In regard to this alphabet great changes were in the air (see Higher Standard Mark, pages 49-59), and this alphabet comes to an end with the letter t, and no later date letter than t was employed. But from March to May in 1697 the letter a of the Court Hand alphabet was used, and from May 1697 to May 1698 the Court Hand letter b was used (see succeeding alphabet).

This is the only occasion when the London Assay Office departed from the regular employment of twenty letters, from A to U, excluding the letter J.

{369}

LONDON MARKS

1660 Cup (illustrated p. 75).

1664

1675

1685

1692

Other Marks illustrated are 1665 (p. 129), 1669 (p. 197), 1682 (p. 231), 1683 (p. 205).

{371}

LONDON MARKS

1697 to 1715

WILLIAM III (1697-1702), QUEEN ANNE (1702-1714)

During this period there were some important Acts of Parliament which relate to Silver Plate and determine certain changes which are interesting to collectors.

In 1696-7, by 8 and 9 William III, cap. 8, the standard of silver plate was raised higher than that of the coinage, to stop the practice of melting down the coin of the realm and converting it into plate. From the 25th of March, 1697, the new standard became compulsory, and any silver plate made less than ·959, that is, 959 parts of pure silver in every thousand, was illegal. The marks of the maker were to be the first two letters of his surname, and the lion passant and the leopard’s head were to be discontinued. The new standard silver was to be stamped with the figure of Britannia in place of the former mark, and the lion’s head erased in place of the latter.

In 1700, under 12 William III, cap. 4, Chester, York, Exeter, Bristol, and Norwich were reappointed Assay Towns with the right to stamp silver.

It was enacted that the new standard should be observed; that the maker’s mark, the variable date letter (“Roman”), the arms of the city, the lion’s head erased, and the figure of Britannia be stamped on the silver.

In 1702, 1 Anne, cap. 3, a similar power was conferred on Newcastle-on-Tyne.

{372}

1697 to 1715

This alphabet presents a difficulty at the outset. The letter a was only used from March to May 1697, and from thence to May 1698 the letter b was used. An example is illustrated on page 217 of this latter period. The maker, John Bodington, signs the first two letters of his surname below a bishop’s mitre.

The letter c is illustrated from a mark on a cupping-bowl, 1698, and should be compared—as should all the letters in this Court Hand alphabet—with the letter c (1640) in the series 1638 to 1657.

The letter c (1698) and q (1711) are shown opposite. The maker’s initials, Ke, stand for William Keith.

The letter d (1699) is given elsewhere (page 353).

The letter f (1701) is the mark on a sugar-caster illustrated (page 269). The maker, Christopher Canner, stamps the first two letters of his surname.

The letter i (1704) is unlike any modern i, and is from a Monteith illustrated (page 135). The maker, Louis Mettayer, uses the first two letters of his surname.

The letter k (1705) is equally unfamiliar. It is from a teapot and stand. The maker, Simon Pantin, signs the first letters of his Christian and surnames. In 1739 this was made compulsory by statute.

The letter r (1712) is shown on a caster illustrated (page 269).

All the marks on opposite page denote the Higher Standard—figure of Britannia and lion’s head erased.

{373}

LONDON MARKS

The Higher Standard (1697-1720)

1698 Maker, William Keith.

1705 Maker, Simon Pantin.

1707 Maker, Robert Cooper.

1709 Maker, Seth Lofthouse.

1711 Maker, William Keith.

Other Marks illustrated are 1697 (p. 217), 1701 (p. 269), 1704 (p. 135), 1712 (p. 269).

{375}

LONDON MARKS

1716 to 1778

GEORGE I, GEORGE II, and GEORGE III (the first quarter of his reign).

In the sixth year of the reign of George I, in 1720, the old silver standard was revived. After 1720 the figure of Britannia and the lion’s head erased disappear from silver. In 1721 the leopard’s head and the lion passant reappear as hall and standard marks, and from this date the provincial offices again took up the assaying of silver.

In 1721 the leopard’s head was in a square shield, as shown on page 357.

In 1722 and 1723 the leopard’s head was in a circular shield. In 1724 and 1725 the shield for the leopard’s head was in an escutcheon with a rounded base (see illustration, page 357). From 1726 to 1728 the leopard’s head again is in a circular shield, and this and the previous years, 1722 and 1723, are the only occasions when the circular shield was used.

The shapes of the shields of the lion passant during this time are shown in the Table (page 357).

From 1729 to 1738 the leopard’s head is in a shield with a pointed base, and the lion is in an oblong shield.

From 1739 to 1755 the lion is in a shield which is irregular in shape following the outline. The leopard’s head from 1739 to 1750 is in a shield of elaborate shape, and the whiskers of the leopard are clearly marked in the stamp. From 1751 to 1755 the shield for the leopard’s head changes. These differences can be seen in the Table (page 357).

From 1756 to 1775 the leopard’s head has another shield. The lion from 1756 to 1895 (139 years) retains the same shaped shield.

{376}

1716 to 1735

The example given on the opposite page for the year 1717 belongs to the Higher Standard period.

The mark for 1722 is from a tea-caddy made by Bowles Nash, whose mark is a B with a star.

1736 to 1755

The example given on the opposite page for the year 1753 shows the date letter s, and is noticeable as likely to be confused with the letter f 1741.

1756 to 1775

The mark for 1761 on a cake-basket with the maker’s mark, E.R. (Edward Romer) is illustrated (page 291). It will be observed that from this date the initial letters of Christian and surname of makers were now used. This was compulsory in 1739 by 12 of George II cap. 26.

For the year 1773 a sugar-bowl is illustrated (page 283). The marks are given on the opposite page. The makers were S. and J. Crespell.

{377}

LONDON MARKS

1717

1722 Maker, Bowles Nash.

1751 Maker, Benjamin Gignac.

1753

1773 Sugar-bowl (illustrated p. 283).

Other Marks illustrated are 1746 (p. 251), 1761 (p. 291).

{379}

LONDON MARKS

1776 to 1835

GEORGE III, GEORGE IV (1820-30), WILLIAM IV

The most important feature in regard to marks in this period is the addition of the reigning sovereign’s head, which commenced in 1784. This Duty Mark was continued throughout the reigns of George III, George IV, William IV, and during the reign of Victoria until 1890, when the mark of the sovereign’s head was discontinued on the abolition of the duty on silver.

In regard to the collection of silver, it must be admitted that this period embraces decadent styles. The delicacy of the Stuart period with its refinement and grace, and the subsequent reticence of the Queen Anne and early Georgian styles, with their sober though essentially national character, was submerged in the first half of the nineteenth century in the Victorian era. There is an absence of originality and a feeling of dull, insipid, or overloaded ornament in most of the work of this period.

Practically with this period, from a collector’s point of view, the subject comes to an end. But there are bright spots now and again visible. There is the classic influence due to the same artistic impulse which directed Wedgwood and the Brothers Adam; but this only extended into the early years of the nineteenth century. The First Empire style came and went in furniture and silver, and only fitfully does it appear in design later than 1830.

{380}

1776 to 1795

In this period the most noticeable difference in the marks is the addition of the head of George III, in 1784, when the Duty Act was passed (24 George III).

1796 to 1815

Three examples are given from this period, 1798, 1808, and 1810; the last set of marks is taken from a silver-gilt salt with Pompeian style of ornament made by Rundell, Bridge and Rundell. This is illustrated on page 173.

1816 to 1835

In 1821 the head of George IV replaced that of his father, and from 1831 to 1836 the head of William IV was stamped as a Duty Mark.

In 1821 the leopard’s head lost its crown, and has so remained since that date. The lion at the same time had the head fuller and in profile, in which style it has continued till the present day.

{381}

LONDON MARKS

1779

1798

1808

1810 Salt Cellar (p. 173).

1826

{383}

LONDON MARKS

1836 to 1915

VICTORIA (1837-1901), EDWARD VII (1901-10), GEORGE V

From a collecting point of view there is not much in this last period to invite comparison either in beauty or originality with the best periods of old silver.

In order to complete the series of examples herein given a selection of marks has been made covering this period, so that the reader may recognize modern marks, especially when the design of the piece has been copied from some old specimen.

The period is important in embracing several protective measures designed to safeguard the public interests and to bring the assay offices under stricter supervision. The Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Hall-Marking of Gold and Silver Plate, etc., which was issued in 1879, should be carefully studied by those students who wish to master the complexities of hall-marking.

In 1876 it was enacted (39 and 40 Vict. cap. 35) that all foreign plate, before its sale in England, should be assayed here and bear the letter F in an oval escutcheon. Amended by 4 Edward VII, cap. 6, 1904.

In regard to forgery of silver plate there is ample provision to bring the offenders to book. By Vict. 7 and 8, cap. 22, sections 5 and 6, penalties are provided for those altering and adding to plate, and possessing, selling, or exporting such plate without fresh assay; a fine of £10 can be imposed for each article so found in a person’s possession without lawful excuse.

{384}

1836 to 1855

From 1837 the head of Queen Victoria appears as a Duty Mark, and till 1875 the leopard’s head, still uncrowned, is of a different form (see Table, page 357).

1856 to 1875

In this period the shape of the shield for the date letter, which had remained the same since 1756, was now for the last time used. Its new shape is shown in the following period.

1876 to 1895

The shape of the date shield was changed with the letter B in 1877. In 1876, with the letter A, the shield of the leopard’s head was changed, and the face became more feline with whiskers (see Table, page 357). In 1876 another new mark was added, the letter F, in an oval escutcheon, which was compulsory by law to be stamped on all foreign silver assayed at any office in the United Kingdom.

In 1890 the sovereign’s head disappears, as the duty on silver was then abolished.

1896 to 1915

In this last period of all it will be observed that the shields of the date letter and the leopard’s head both change their shapes, and have three lobes.

{385}

LONDON MARKS

1835 Maker, William Eames.

1845 Maker, R. Garrard.

1873

1891 Maker, S. C. Harris.

1915

{387}

IV

EXAMPLES OF
PROVINCIAL
MARKS

EXETER
CHESTER
NORWICH
YORK
NEWCASTLE
BIRMINGHAM
SHEFFIELD

{389}

PROVINCIAL MARKS

EXETER

Although the records show that Exeter was among the Assay Offices appointed in 1700 by 12 and 13 William, cap. 3 and 4, it is evident that silver was assayed here by the city guild of goldsmiths, as some of the marks found on old silver, indubitably of Exeter origin, belong to the sixteenth century.

We are enabled, by the kindness of Mr. J. H. Ellett Lake of Exeter, to give a very representative selection of Exeter marks, and, in addition, to give illustrations of the pieces themselves in this volume.

It will be seen that the earlier marks date from 1572, and the X surmounted by a crown was the city or hall-mark up to a period as late as 1640. In the early eighteenth century, subsequent to the Act of William III, the hall-mark becomes a castle with the shield divided by a vertical line.

In 1773 a Report was made by a Committee of the House of Commons, who held an inquiry and took evidence as to the manner of conducting the Assay Offices in London, York, Exeter, Bristol, Chester, Norwich, and Newcastle. The Assay Master at Exeter, in describing the method employed at his office, stated that the hall-mark was a castle, and the date letter for 1772 was Z, in Roman character, and that A was to be the letter for the next year, and that the whole alphabet was gone through.

But J, apparently, was never used at Exeter, and in later alphabets no letter after U was used, e.g. A to U (1797 to 1816), etc.

{390}

EXETER MARKS

It is not possible in a volume of this size to give all the date letters of provincial offices, but the following may be of use as indicating the letters used at Exeter:—

A	to	Z	(1701 to 1724)	} in pointed shield.
a	to	z	(1725 to 1748)	} in pointed shield.
A	to	Z	(1749 to 1772)	in square shield.
A	to	Y	(1773 to 1796).	The letter I was used for two years, 1781 and 1782.
A	to	U	(1797 to 1816)	in square shield.
a	to	u	(1817 to 1836)	in square shield with four corners cut off.
	to		(1837 to 1856)	ditto	ditto.
A	to	U	(1857 to 1876)	ditto.
A	to	F	(1877 to 1882),	when the office closed. Square shield with oval base.

In regard to the marks illustrated on opposite page it will be seen that the Higher Standard Mark was used at Exeter after 1701. Examples are shown, 1706 and 1714. Collectors have sometimes stumbled into the belief that no silver was allowed by law to be assayed at any other office than London during the period 1697 to 1720. But it is only between 1697 and 1701 that the provincial offices were practically closed. From 1701 till 1720 such offices did assay and mark silver plate with the figure of Britannia, and the lion’s head erased.

{391}

EXETER MARKS

1575 Chalice (illustrated p. 67).

1640 Chalice (illustrated p. 71).

1706 Maker, John Elston.

1714 Maker, Pentecost Symonds.

1748 Tankard (illustrated p. 117).

Other Exeter Marks illustrated are 1705 (p. 115), 1707 (p. 209), 1728 (p. 273), 1729 (p. 81), 1733 (p. 117).

{393}

PROVINCIAL MARKS

CHESTER, NORWICH, AND YORK

The old cathedral cities were the centres of art, therefore it is not surprising to find assay offices established there from the earliest times. Besides Exeter, which we have considered, there were assay offices at Chester, Norwich, and York. It is remarkable that no assay office appears to have existed at Canterbury, nor at Salisbury, nor at Winchester.

Chester has a long history in connexion with the coinage and with assaying silver. In the sixteenth century there is a record of the assay of silver there, and Charles I struck some of his silver coinage there in 1645 with the mint mark of the three wheatsheaves of the city.

Norwich was mentioned as one of the assay towns in 2 Hen. VI, cap. 17, in 1423, which honour it shares with York and Newcastle as being of such ancient lineage. The corporation of Norwich possesses several pieces of plate of the Elizabethan period, with the city arms, a lion, and a castle as a hall-mark. A Tudor rose with a crown above is the standard mark. The office ceased early in the eighteenth century.

York is another office which is now extinct. At the end of the eighteenth century it was not mentioned among the other assay offices, but in the middle of the nineteenth century it had recommenced but did little business, and no plate seems to have been assayed there since about 1870.

{394}

The Chester hall-mark down to 1697 is the city arms, viz. a dagger erect between three sheaves of wheat. In 1701 the mark became three demi-lions with wheatsheaves, when Chester was reappointed as one of the assay offices in the reign of William III. The shield was again changed after 1775 to the older form with the dagger which is still in use at the Chester assay office.

We give on the opposite page an example of the mark in 1775, with the three demi-lions superimposed on the shield with the three wheatsheaves. The later mark, of the year 1800, shows the dagger with the wheatsheaves. It will be observed that these marks have the leopard’s head and the lion passant, the hall-mark and the standard-mark of the London office.

The present marks used at the Chester Assay Office, together with the maker’s initials, are the lion passant, the City arms, and the date letter. The letters now in use are Italic capitals commencing with A in 1901. The letter for 1915 is P.

An example is given of Norwich marks stamped on a tall wine-cup, about 1620, of the James I period. The castle and lion is the hall-mark. A Tudor rose surmounted by a crown is also found on Norwich silver as the standard mark. The mark of the orb and cross given opposite is the mark of Peter Peterson the maker.

The York mark prior to 1700 is of a peculiar composite character. It is now held to represent half leopard’s head and half fleur-de-lis conjoined. The example shown is on a flagon in the possession of the Corporation of York, and was made by Marmaduke Best, whose initials are stamped; the letter R is the date letter for 1674. The other example, about 1800, shows the hall-mark with the St. George’s cross and the five diminutive lions. The date-mark was obliterated on this specimen. The maker’s mark is N.G. The duty mark was too worn to reproduce. It will be noticed, as at Chester, the leopard’s head and lion passant are included in the marks.

{395}

CHESTER

1775 Maker, Richard Richardson.

1800

NORWICH

c. 1620 Wine Cup (illustrated p. 125).

YORK

1674 Maker, Marmaduke Best.

c. 1800

{397}

PROVINCIAL MARKS

Newcastle-on-Tyne (1702-1884)

Birmingham, Sheffield (1773 to present day)

Newcastle is cited in the Acts of 1423 and 1462 as one of the cities appointed to assay silver. By the Act relating to the Higher Standard, and making it illegal to assay silver elsewhere than London, there is a hiatus after 1696. But the provincial assay offices did not long remain compulsorily idle. They petitioned the House of Commons, and obtained redress. In 1702, 1 Anne, cap. 3 was specially applicable to Newcastle-on-Tyne, and this Act reappointed the town for assaying silver, and it is there on record that “there is, and time out of mind hath been, an ancient Company of Goldsmiths, which, with their families, by the said penalty are like to be ruined, and the trade utterly lost in the said town.”

The Newcastle date letters are as follows:[8]—

1702 to 1720,		to	.	In circular shields. Except , which is in a square shield. Letters used in no order.
1721 to 1739,	a	to	T.	Old English capitals, except a and T. Circular shields, except R and T.
1740 to 1758,	A	to	T.	Roman capitals	in shield	with pointed base.
1759 to 1790,		to	.	Italic capitals	ditto	ditto
1791 to 1814,	A	to	Z.	Roman capitals. Shield hexagonal in shape.
1815 to 1838,	A	to	Z.	Block capitals. Square-shaped shield with top corners cut off.
1839 to 1863,	A	to	Z.	Roman capitals. Hexagonal shield.
1864 to 1883,	a	to	u.	Small Roman type. Oval shield. Office closed in 1884.

The complete Newcastle marks are the Lion passant, the Leopard’s Head, the Town or Hall Mark of Three Castles, the Date Letter, the Maker’s Mark, and the Duty Mark of the Sovereign’s Head (till 1890).

{398}

Birmingham and Sheffield were both granted the rights to assay silver in 1773 by 13 Geo. III, cap. 52.

The Birmingham marks are an Anchor, a Lion passant, a Date Letter, and the Maker’s Mark, and the Duty Mark till it was abolished in 1890.

The date alphabets for Birmingham[9] are:—

1773 to 1798,	A	to	Z.	Roman capitals.
1798 to 1824,	a	to	z.	Small Roman.
1824 to 1849,		to	.	Old English capitals.
1849 to 1875,	A	to	Z.	Roman capitals.
1875 to 1900,		to	.	Old English small.
1900 to 1924,	a	to	z.	Small Roman.

The Office Year begins 1st July and ends 30th June.

The Sheffield[9] marks are the Lion passant, a Crown, the Date Letter, the Maker’s Mark, and the Sovereign’s Head as the Duty Mark till abolished in 1890.

From 1773 to 1823 the date letters were taken at random. From 1824 to the present day they run in regular order from A to Z.

On small pieces of silver the crown and date letter are on one punch.

The alphabets for Sheffield are:—

				Letters omitted—
1824 to 1843,	a	to	z.	i, j, n, o, w, y.
1844 to 1867,	A	to	Z.	J and Q.
1868 to 1892,	A	to	Z.	I.
1893 to 1917,		to	.	j.

The Newcastle marks, 1737, are drawn from a coffee-pot (illustrated page 243). The Date Letter is in old English capital type.

The Birmingham marks (reproduced opposite) are in date 1804 and 1889. It will be seen that the Duty Mark of Sovereign’s Head is in a broken oval shield.

The Sheffield marks are from candlesticks, that of 1773 being made by Samuel Roberts & Co.

{399}

NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE

1737 Coffee-pot (illustrated p. 243).

BIRMINGHAM

1804

1889

SHEFFIELD

1773 Maker, Samuel Roberts & Co.

1778

{413}

INDEX

Addison, Spectator, quoted on salt spoon, 153
Alphabets of London date marks (1598-1835), 359-385
American silversmiths, 47
Anathema Cup, the (1481), Pembroke College, 90, 94
Apostle spoons, list of apostles with their emblems, 183;
prices, 187, 193
Assay offices, early, 27;
eighteenth century, 28
Basket work in silver, 276, 282;
bread and cake baskets, 293
Beaker, the Stuart, 119;
illustrations of the, 121
“Beer Lane,” engraving by Hogarth, 132
Bell-shaped salt cellar, illustrated, 147
Below the salt, table customs, 141
Birmingham Marks illustrated, 398, 399
Bodington, John, silversmith (1697), 216
Bowl, plum broth (1697), illustrated, 217
Boxes for sugar, 261
Bread-basket, the, 293
Britannia mark, forgeries of, 220
Britannia mark, when found on silver, 51;
used when silver is not higher standard, 58, 61
Buck, Jonathan, silversmith, Cork, specimen illustrated, 339
Busfield, William, silversmith, York, 113
Caddy spoons, 194
Cake basket, the, 293
Candle holders, part of centre-pieces, 276
Candlestick, brass, seventeenth-century, illustrated, 129
Candlesticks, silver—
Charles II examples illustrated, 227
Early eighteenth-century examples illustrated, 231
Early Stuart type, 225
Lambeth delft example (1648) illustrated, 223
Sheffield example (1782) illustrated, 235
Casters, 271-276{414}
Casters illustrated—
George II (Exeter), 273
Group (Queen Anne and George III), 277
Irish (1699), 331
Scottish (1746), 317
William III and Queen Anne, 269
Catherine of Braganza popularizes tea-drinking, 254
Centre-piece, the, 276
Chalice, the, Elizabethan forms, 73, 74;
the Exeter pattern, 73
Charles I statue, Charing Cross, its secret burial, 107
Charles II and Lord Mayor, piquant story of, 44
Chester Marks illustrated, 395
Chronological List of Specimens Illustrated—

Henry VII (1485-1509)	1490	Mazer, 87
Henry VII (1485-1509)	1499	Leigh Cup, Mercers’ Company, 91
	1500	Hour-glass standing salt, 143
Elizabeth (1558-1603)	1570	Stoneware jug with silver mounts, 95
Elizabeth (1558-1603)	1572	Flagon, 105
	1572	Chalice and cover, 67
	1573	Chalice and cover, 71
	1575	Chalice and cover, 67
	1585	Standing cup and cover, 95
	1599	Flagon, 105
	1601	Bell-shaped salt cellar, 147
James I (1603-1625)	1606	Beaker, 121
James I (1603-1625)	c. 1620	Tall wine cup (no date letter), 125
Charles I (1625-1649)	1631	Wine cup, 129
Charles I (1625-1649)	1631	Beaker, 121
	1637	Candlestick, 223
	1638	Salt cellar, Mercers’ Company, 151
	1640	Chalice and cover, 71
	1648	Apostle spoon (St. Andrew), 185
Commonwealth (1649-1660)	1651	Spoon, slipped in the stalk, 181
Commonwealth (1649-1660)	1652	Spoon, seal-top, 185
	1653	Porringer, 197
	1660	Spoon, Puritan, 181
Charles II (1660-1685)	1660	Cup, 75
Charles II (1660-1685)	1662	Posset-cup and cover, 197{415}
	1665	Spoon, flat stem, 181
	1665	Wine cup, 129
	1666	Porringer, 201
	1669	Porringer, 197
	1670	Teapot, 243
	1671	Beaker, 121
	1672	Porringer, 209
	1673	Candlesticks, 227
	1674	Apostle spoon (St. Simon Zelotes), Exeter, 189
	1677	Pepys standing cup, 99
	1679	Spoon, lobed end, 189
	1679	Tankard, 111
	1679	Caudle cup and cover, 201
	1679	Octagonal salt cellar (Mercers’ Company), 155
	1680	Patens, 79
	1682	Snuffers and tray, 231
	1683	Posset-pot and cover, 205
	1684	Tankards (York), 111
	1685	Posset-pot and cover, 213
William III (1689-1702)	1692	Flagons, 75
William III (1689-1702)	1694	Loving-cup (Cork), 331
	1697	Dish and ladle, 217
	1699	Caster (Dublin), 331
	1701	Caster, 269
	1701	Tankard, 111
Anne (1702-1714)	1702	Spoon trefoil top, rat’s-tail (Exeter), 189
Anne (1702-1714)	1702	Lavabo bowl, 79
	1703	Spoon, trefoil top (Newcastle), 185
	1703	Spoon, trefoil top, 185
	1704	Candlestick, 231
	1704	“Monteith” punch-bowl, 135
	1705	Tankard (Exeter), 115
	1705	Scottish quaich, 313
	1706	Candlestick (Exeter), 231
	1707	Porringer (Exeter), 209
	1712	Caster, 269
	1712	Trencher salt cellar, 165
	1714	Paten (Exeter), 79{416}
George I (1714-1727)	1718	Tea-caddy (Exeter), 259
George I (1714-1727)	1721	Candlestick, 231
	1726	Cream-jug, 305
George II (1727-1760)	1728	Caster (Exeter), 273
George II (1727-1760)	1729	Small communion cup and cover, 81
	1730	Tea-caddy, 259
	1730	Coffee-pot, 255
	1730	Trencher salt cellar, 165
	1733	Mug (Exeter), 117
	1736	Jug, helmet-shaped, 301
	1737	Coffee-pot (Newcastle), 243
	1740	Centre-piece (Dublin), 335
	1740	Cream-jug (Dublin), 339
	1741	Coffee-pot, Frontispiece
	1745	Teapot, 247
	1746	Kettle and stand, 251
	1746	Caster (Edinburgh), 317
	1747	Caster, 277
	1748	Tankard (Exeter), 117
	1758	Trencher salt cellar, 165
	1760	Tea-caddies and sugar box, 263
	1760	Irish potato-ring, Design on cover of volume [Transcriber's Note: The design did not appear on the cover of this edition.]
	1740-1775	Bread-baskets, 289
George III (1760-1820)	1760	Caster, 277
George III (1760-1820)	1761	Centre-piece, 279
	1761	Cake-basket, 291
	1764	Cream-jug, 305
	1764	Cream-jug (Cork), 339
	1765	Circular salt cellar with club feet, 165
	1769	Salt cellar with glass liner, 167
	1769	Coffee-pot (Edinburgh), 321
	1770	Cream-pail (Dublin), 343
	1771	Salt cellar, perforated work, 173
	1771	Caster, 277
	1773	Sugar-bowl, 283
	1775	Coffee-pot, 255
	1775	Tea-caddy, 259
	1775	Centre-piece, 279
	1776	Cream-pail, 285
	1778	Tea-urn (Edinburgh), 325{417}
	1779	Cream-jug, 305
	1780	Cream-jug, 305
	1781-1790	Salt cellars, tureen form, 171
	1782	Candlestick (Sheffield), 235
	1782	Cream-pail, 285
	1784	Tea-caddy, 259
	1785	Salt cellar, circular, 165
	1785	Salt cellar with glass liner, 167
	1786	Salt cellar, cloven-hoof feet, 167
	1786	Sugar-bowl, 285
	1789	Salt cellar with club feet, 167
	1789	Salt cellar, circular, 171
	1790	Cream-jug, 309
	1790	Mug (Edinburgh), 313
	1791-1797	Salt cellar, boat-shaped, 171
	1790-1800	Coffee-pots and teapots, 255
	1800	Cream-jug, 309
	1803	Salt cellar, washing tub form, 173
	1804	Cream-jug, 309
	1809	Cream-jug, 309
	1810	Salt cellar, Pompeian design, 173
George IV (1820-1830)	1818	Salt cellar, tureen form, 173
William IV (1830-1837)	1832	Salt cellar, circular, 173

Classic influence, when at its height, 287
Clipped coins called in, panic in 1696, 57
Coffee-drinking, women’s petition to Parliament, 245
Coffee-pots, 250
Coffee-pots illustrated—
George II (1741), Frontispiece
Group George II and George III, 255
Newcastle (1737), 243
Scottish (1769), 321
Coin clipping, attempt to stamp out, 52
Coiners, heavy penalties for, 53
Communion cup and cover (Exeter), 78
Copper tokens, seventeenth century, with goldsmith’s name, 44
Cork Marks illustrated, 409{418}
Cream-jug, the, 303
Cream-pail, the, 288
Cups, standing, 90
Date letters of London Assay Office (1598-1835), 359-385
Date marks, eccentricities of alphabets, 36;
explanation of, 34-39
Delft salt cellars, Lambeth, Rouen, illustrated, 161
Dish, plum broth (1697), illustrated, 217
Dish ring or stand, Irish, 342
“Dollar” found on Irish silver, 334
Dollars, Spanish, legal tender with head of George III stamped on them, 337
Dryden receives bad coins from his publisher, 54
Dublin Marks illustrated, 409
Dutch silver—brandy cup in form like quaich, 316
Duty mark, the, explanation of, 60
Ecclesiastical plate, 65-78
Edinburgh Marks illustrated, 405
Edinburgh tea-table customs, 303
Earthenware emulating silver, 169, 249, 262, 294
East India Company, teapot presented to, 241;
import of tea and teapots by, 249
Eighteenth-century Assay Offices, 28
Eighteenth-century beverages, 253;
salt cellars, types of, 157
Elizabethan flagons, 107
Elston, John, silversmith, Exeter, 78
Exeter Marks illustrated, 81, 115, 117, 209, 273, 391
Exeter silver plate illustrated—
Chalices, Elizabethan, 67, 71;
Charles I, 71
Communion cup, George II, 81
Mug, George III, 117
Spoons, 189
Tankard, Queen Anne, 115;
George II, 117
Flagons, sixteenth-century, 107
Flaxman, John, teapot designed by, 250
Foreign mark, the, 62
Forgeries, 220
Fraud, cutting out old marks, 275
Fraud, possibilities of, in marks, 63, 359
French influence in late eighteenth century, 287{419}
Gamble, Ellis, goldsmith, master of Hogarth, his shop card, 45
Gibson, George, silversmith, York, 113
“Gin Street,” engraving by Hogarth, 132
Glasgow Marks illustrated, 405
Glasgow silver. Marks, 404;
quaich (1665) illustrated, 313
Glassworker, designs of the, utilized in silver, 212
Goble, Robert, silversmith, Cork, specimen illustrated, 331;
marks illustrated, 409
Goldsmiths’ Company, London, early power of, 26;
the true function of, 35;
salt cellars in possession of, 146
Hall-marks, explanation of, 25-30
Hall-marks of various Assay Offices, 28
Handle, the, of posset-pot and porringer, 207
Hanway, Jonas, condemns tea, 254
Harp handles in Irish silver, 338;
cup illustrated, 331
Hibernia, figure of, as a mark, 33, 334
Higher standard mark, explanation of, 49-59
Hogarth, William, apprenticed to goldsmith, 45;
his satires on drinking, 132
House of Commons Select Committee on Hall-marking of Plate, 25, 27, 153
Hour-glass form of salt cellar illustrated, 143
Individuality of craftsmen’s work extinguished, 43
Initials of makers, 43
Innholders’ Company salt cellars, 146
Ions, I., silversmith, Exeter, 74
Irish goldsmiths, 47
Irish makers’ names, 345, 346
Irish plate illustrated—
Caster, 331
Centre-piece, 335
Cream-jugs, 339
Cream-pail, 343
Loving-cup, 331
Potato-ring, Cover of volume
Irish silver, 329
Irish standard mark, 33
Irish towns where silver was wrought, 337
Jug, stoneware (1570), with silver mounts, 101{420}
Lambeth delft salt cellar, 163
Lamerie, Paul de, mark illustrated, 251
Lantern-shaped teapot (1670) illustrated, 243
Lavabo bowl illustrated, 79
Leigh standing cup, the, 93
“Lima” found on George II gold coins, 337
Lion’s head erased mark, when found on silver, 51
Locke, “Further Considerations Concerning the Raising the Value of Money,” 55
London hall-marks—
Marks illustrated, 129, 135, 197, 205, 217, 231, 251, 269, 291, 349-385
Table of date letters (1598-1835), 351-355
Table showing differences in shapes of shields, 357
Longfellow: poem on Paul Revere, silversmith, 48
Louis Seize style in table ornaments, 287
Loving-cup, the, and its ceremonial, 94
Lowndes’ “Essay for the Amendment of the Silver Coins,” 53, 55
Lustre ware (Staffordshire) emulating silver, 249
Makers’ marks, explanation of, 40
Makers’ names, Irish silver, list of, 345, 346
Marks illustrated—
Birmingham, 399
Chester, 395
Cork, 409
Dublin, 409
Edinburgh, 405
Exeter, 391
Glasgow, 405
London, 351-385
Newcastle, 399
Norwich, 395
Sheffield, 399
York, 395
Marks on silver—a trade secret, 38
Marks stamped on silver, various, 23-63
Marks, the position of, as stamped on silver, 359;
to prevent fraud, 275;
used by various assay offices, 29;
where placed on spoons, 193
Mazer, the fifteenth century, 86
Mercers’ Company, Leigh Cup (1499) illustrated, 91{421}
Monteith punch-bowl illustrated, 135
Mordaunt, Charles, Earl of Peterborough, 134
Morgan, Octavius, his pioneer work on marks, 38
Mug, the, 119
Newcastle-on-Tyne, date letters employed at, 36, 37;
illustrated, 397-399
Newcastle-on-Tyne silver plate illustrated—
Coffee-pot, 243
Spoon, 185
Nineteenth century, early, types of salt cellars, 157
Norwich Corporation salt cellar, 149
Norwich mark illustrated, 395
Norwich silver plate illustrated—
Tall wine cup, 125
Paten, the, its form, 69
Pepys, Samuel, buries his silver plate at Bethnal Green, 127
Pepys standing cup and cover, the, 101
Peterborough, Earl of, his exploits, 134
Peterson, Peter, silversmith, Norwich, 123
Provincial Assay Offices reappointed, 50
Provincial offices ceased marking silver for five years, 29, 50
Porcelain teapots the prototypes of silver, 246, 249
Porringer, the, 195-220
“Portobello,” found on English silver coins, 334
Posset-pot, the, 195-220
Posset-pot, sixteenth-century Exeter College, Oxford, 203
Potato-ring, Irish, 342
Potter, the eighteenth-century, and the silversmith, 169, 249, 262, 294
Pottery, seventeenth-century example of posset-cup, 211
Prices—
Beakers, 137
Candlesticks, 229, 237
Casters, 297
Coffee-pots, 262
Cream-jugs, 308
Cups, standing, 137
Dish rings, 346
Elizabethan jug, 101
Goblets, 138
Irish silver, 346{422}
Jug, stoneware, silver mounts, 101
Loving-cups, 137
Mazers, 89
“Monteith,” 138
Porringers, 219, 220
Posset-pots, 219
Potato-rings, 346
Punch-bowls, 138
Quaich, 320
Salt cellars, 145, 149, 159, 170, 175
Spoons, apostle, 187, 193;
caddy, 194;
seal-top, 194
Standing cups, 137
Sugar-bowls, 297
Tankards, 137
Tea-caddies, 261, 265
Tea-kettles, 265
Teapots, 265
Wine cups, 138
Punch-bowl, the, 128
Punch-bowl, historic American, 47
Puritans, destruction of objects of art by, 70
Quaich, the Scottish, 316
Queen Anne forgeries posset-pots, 220
Radcliff, J. R., silversmith, Exeter, 74
Revere, Paul, celebrated American silversmith, 48
Richards, Edmund, silversmith, Exeter, 216
Ring, potato or dish, Irish, 342
Romer, Edward, silversmith, 294
Salt cellars, 139;
classified list of types, 154, 157
Salt cellars—
Norwich Corporation, 149
Christ’s College, Cambridge, 158;
illustrated, 143
Clothworkers’ Company, 146
Goldsmiths’ Company, 146
Ironmongers’ Company, 146
Innholders’ Company, 146
Mercers’ Company, 159;
illustrated, 151, 155
Skinners’ Company, 146
Vintners’ Company, 146{423}
Scott, Sir Walter, quoted as to tea-leaves, 304
Scottish silver, 311-327
Scottish silver plate illustrated—
Caster, 317
Coffee-pot, 321
Mug, 313
Quaich, 313
Tea-urn, 327
Scottish standard mark, 35
Seventeenth-century tankards, 110
Shapes of shields, differences in, table showing, 357
Sheffield Marks illustrated, 398, 399
Sheffield “silver plated” or silver plate, definition, 234
Sheffield silver plate illustrated—
Candlestick, 235
Shields, table showing differences in London Hall-marks, 357
Shute, William, silversmith, marks illustrated, 361
Silver mountings for wood vessels, 86;
for earthenware, 86, 98, 101, 109
Skinners’ Company salt cellars, 146
Somerset House, the battle of, 107
Spanish dollars legal tender with head of George III stamped on them, 337
Spoons—
Apostle, 180, 183;
illustrated, 185, 189;
prices, 187
Fiddle pattern, 192
Flat stem, 188;
illustrated, 181
Maidenhead, 187
Rat-tail, 191;
illustrated, 189
Seal-top, 187;
illustrated, 185;
prices, 194
Slipped in the stalk, 188;
illustrated, 185
Trifid, 188;
illustrated, 185
Spoons, placing of marks on, 193
Staffordshire silversmith’s designs, 294
Staffordshire lustre ware emulating silver, 249
Staffordshire potter’s emulation of silver plate, 169, 249, 262, 294
Standard Marks, 31-33
Standard work on marks, 34
Standing cups, 90
Standing salt cellars, 154
“Sterling” found on Cork silver, 334
Stoneware jug, the, Elizabethan, with silver mounts, 98, 101
Strong, James, silversmith, Exeter, 78
Sugar-bowls, 287{424}
Sugar, silver boxes for, 261
Sumner salt cellar, the, illustrated, 155
Symonds, Pentecost, silversmith, Exeter, 78
Table customs, “below the salt,” 141
Tankards, seventeenth-century, 110
Tea advertisement, a quaint seventeenth-century, 242
Tea-caddies, 258;
evolution to cabinet-maker’s style, 261
Tea-drinking, excessive, 254
Teapot, the earliest known silver (1670), 241
Teapots, 241
Tea-strainers, 304
Tea-table manners, eighteenth-century, 303
Tea-urn, Scottish, 1778; illustrated, 325
“Tiger” ware, Elizabethan, with silver mounts, 98
Tokens, copper (seventeenth century) with goldsmiths’ names, 46
Town marks found on Scottish silver, 315
Trencher salt cellars, 157
Turner cup, the (1679), York Corporation plate, 102
“Vigo” found on Queen Anne’s guineas (1703), 337
Vyner, Sir Robert, piquant story of, 44
Wedgwood wooden models of silversmith’s designs, 250
Wesley, John, condemns tea, 254
West Malling jug, the Elizabethan (1581), 101
Wine cup, the Stuart, 123
Wine cup, illustrations of—
James I, 125
Charles II, 129
Women’s petition to Parliament against coffee, 245
William III and the debasement of the coin, 49
York Corporation plate, 102
York Marks illustrated, 395
York silver plate illustrated—
Tankards (Charles II), 111
Marks, 395

Printed in Great Britain by
UNWIN BROTHERS, LIMITED, LONDON AND WOKING

Chats on Old Jewellery and Trinkets. By MacIver Percival. With nearly 300 Illustrations. Cloth, 9s. net.

Chats on Cottage and Farmhouse Furniture. A companion volume to “Chats on Old Furniture.” By Arthur Hayden. With a coloured frontispiece and 75 other Illustrations. Cloth, 9s. net.

Chats on Old Coins. By Fred W. Burgess. With a coloured frontispiece and 258 other Illustrations. Cloth, 9s. net.

Chats on Old Copper and Brass. By Fred W. Burgess. With a coloured frontispiece and 86 other Illustrations. Cloth, 9s. net.

Chats on Household Curios. By Fred W. Burgess. With 94 Illustrations. Cloth, 9s. net.

Chats on Japanese Prints. By Arthur Davison Ficke. With a coloured frontispiece and 56 Illustrations. Cloth, 9s. net.

Chats on Old Clocks. By Arthur Hayden. With a frontispiece and 80 Illustrations. 2nd Ed. Cloth, 9s. net.

Chats on Old Silver. By Arthur Hayden. With a frontispiece, 99 full-page Illustrations, and illustrated table of marks. Cloth, 9s. net.

Chats on Old Miniatures. By J. J. Foster, F.S.A. With a coloured frontispiece and 116 other Illustrations. Cloth, 9s. net.

This book presents in a concise and popular form a variety of valuable information on the collection and preservation of miniatures, on the leading English and French artists, and on the specimens exhibited in public galleries.

Chats on Old Lace and Needlework. By Mrs. Lowes. With a frontispiece and 74 other Illustrations. Cloth, 9s. net.

Written by an expert and enthusiast in these most interesting branches of art. The low price at which the work is issued is exceptional in dealing with these subjects, and it is remarkable in view of the technical knowledge displayed and the many photographic illustrations which practically interleave the book.

Chats on Oriental China. By J. F. Blacker. With a coloured frontispiece and 70 other Illustrations. Cloth, 9s. net.

Will be of the utmost service to collectors and to all who may have old Chinese and Japanese porcelain in their possession. It deals with oriental china from the various standpoints of history, technique, age, marks and values, and is richly illustrated with admirable reproductions.

Chats on English Earthenware. A companion volume to “Chats on English China.” By Arthur Hayden. With a coloured frontispiece, 150 Illustrations and tables of over 200 illustrated marks. Cloth, 9s. net.

Chats on Autographs. By A. M. Broadley. With 130 Illustrations. Cloth, 9s. net.

Chats on Old Pewter. By H. J. L. J. Massé, M.A. With 52 half-tone and numerous other Illustrations. Cloth, 9s. net.

Chats on Postage Stamps. By Fred J. Melville. With 57 half-tone and 17 line Illustrations. Cloth, 9s. net.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Hall-marking of Gold and Silver Plate, 1879.

[2] A period of eleven months. The year 1696 ended on 24th March, and the year 1697 commenced on 25th March.

[3] These initials, found on a James II mug, with the date letter for 1685, are illustrated p. 369.

[4] Short History of the English People, by J. R. Green.

[7] The Position of Marks. Marks are not placed on old silver in a straight line. They are shown in this manner in this volume for convenience, and are the author’s own arrangement. They are in practice irregularly stamped, sometimes in a circle and sometimes upside down. It must be borne in mind that the maker put his mark on first prior to sending the piece to the Assay Office. The remaining marks were stamped thereon under the direction of the Wardens. Although the maker’s mark was stamped first, some of the other marks were often placed on each side of it.

[8] For details concerning these marks I am indebted to Thomas Taylor, Esq., of Chipchase Castle, and to Basil Anderton, Esq., Public Librarian, Newcastle-on-Tyne.—A. H.

[9] I am indebted for these marks to the courtesy of the Assay Master, Birmingham, and to the Assay Master, Sheffield.

First published	1915
Second Impression	1917
Third Impression	1919
Fourth Impression	1922
Fifth Impression	1925

George II Coffee Pot, 1741. Maker, Peter Archambo.	Frontispiece
	PAGE
Chapter II.—Ecclesiastical Plate
Elizabethan Chalices	67
Elizabethan Chalice; Charles I Chalice	71
Charles II Cup; William III Flagons	75
Charles II and Queen Anne Patens	79
George II Communion Cup	81
Chapter III.—The Standing Cup, the Flagon, the Tankards, the Beakers, and the Wine Cup
Mazer, with inscription dated Exeter, 1490	87
The Leigh Cup and Cover, 1499	91
Cup and Cover, 1585	95
Stoneware Jug with Silver Cover and Foot, 1570	95
The Samuel Pepys Standing Cup and Cover, 1677	99
Flagon, 1572; Flagon, 1599	105
Tankards, Charles II, 1679, and William III, 1701	111
Charles II Tankards, York, 1684	111
Queen Anne Tankard, Exeter, 1705	115
Mug, 1733, and Tankard, 1748, Exeter	117
Beakers: James I, 1606; Charles I, 1631; Charles II, 1671	121
James I Wine Cup	125
Stuart Wine Cups; Seventeenth-century Candlestick	129
“Monteith” Punch-bowl, 1704	135{20}
Chapter IV.—The Salt Cellar
Hour-glass Standing Salt Cellar, 1500	143
Bell-shaped Salt Cellar, 1601	147
Circular Salt Cellar, 1638	151
Octagonal Salt Cellar, 1679, “The Sumner Salt”	155
Lambeth Delft and Rouen faience Salt Cellars	161
Group of Small Circular Salts, Queen Anne, George II, and George III	165
Salts with Glass Liner, George III	167
Group of Oblong Salts with three feet, George III	167
Group of Salt Cellars, George III, showing transition	171
Group of Salt Cellars, George III, George IV, and William IV	173
Chapter V.—The Spoon
Seventeenth-century Spoons	181
Seventeenth and Eighteenth-century Spoons	185
Seventeenth and Eighteenth-century Spoons	189
Chapter VI.—The Posset-pot and the Porringer
Commonwealth Porringer, 1653	197
Charles II Posset-pot and Cover, 1662; Porringer, Silver-gilt, 1669	197
Charles II Porringer, 1666	201
Charles II Posset-cup and Cover, 1679	201
Posset-pot and Cover, 1683	205
Charles II Porringer, 1672	209
Queen Anne Porringer, Exeter, 1707	209
James II Posset-cup and Cover, 1685	213
Staffordshire Earthenware Posset-cup, dated 1685	213
Plum Broth Dish and Ladle, 1697	217
Chapter VII.—The Candlestick
Charles I Candlestick, 1637	223
Lambeth Delft Candlestick, dated 1648	223
Charles II Candlesticks, 1673	227
Snuffers and Tray, 1682	231
Candlesticks Queen Anne, 1704, 1706; George I, 1721	231
Candlestick, Sheffield, 1782	235{21}
Chapter VIII.—The Coffee-pot, the Teapot, the Tea-caddy
Coffee-pot, Newcastle, 1737	243
Teapot (Honourable East India Company), 1670	243
Teapot, 1745	247
Kettle, with Stand and Spirit-lamp, 1746	251
Group of Coffee-pots and Teapots	255
Tea-caddies, Exeter, 1718; London, 1730	259
George III Tea-caddies	259
Pair of Tea-caddies and Sugar-box, 1760	263
Chapter IX.—The Caster, the Sugar-bowl, the Cream-pail, the Cake-basket
William III and Queen Anne Casters, 1701 and 1712	269
George II Caster, Exeter, 1728	273
Group of Casters, William III, George II, and George III	277
Centre-piece, 1761	279
Centre-piece, 1775	279
Sugar-bowl, Classic Style, 1773	283
Sugar-bowl, Pierced Work with Glass Liners (late Eighteenth Century)	285
Cream-pails, 1776, 1782	285
Bread-baskets, 1745 to 1775	289
Cake-basket, 1761; Wedgwood Cake-basket	291
Wedgwood Earthenware Dessert-baskets	295
Chapter X.—The Cream-jug
Jug, Paul de Lamerie, 1736	301
Group of Cream-jugs, George I and George III	305
Group of Cream-jugs, late George III	309
Chapter XI.—Scottish Silver
Scottish Quaich, Edinburgh, 1705	313
Mug, Edinburgh, 1790	313
Sugar-caster, Edinburgh, 1746	317
Coffee-pot, Edinburgh, 1769	321
Tea-urn, Edinburgh, 1778	325{22}
Chapter XII.—Irish Silver
Caster, Dublin (George Lyng), 1699	331
Loving-cup, with harp handles, Cork, 1694	331
Centre-piece, Dublin, 1740	335
Cream-jug, signed by Jonathan Buck, Cork, 1764	339
Cream-jug, Dublin, 1740	339
Cream-pail, Dublin, 1770	343
Appendix to Chapter I
Alphabets of Date Letters used at London Assay Office	347-355
Table showing variations in Hall and Standard Marks	357
Series of Examples of London Assay Marks	359-385
Series of Examples of Provincial Assay Marks	387-399
Series of Examples of Scottish and Irish Assay Marks	401-409

	£
James I tankard (1504)	1,720
Elizabethan tankard and cover (1599), 21 oz. 15 dwt. (a record price)	2,300
Elizabethan (Huth sale) (1573)	1,700
Charles I plain tankard (1629), 750s. per oz.	667
Plain tankard; York; maker, Marmaduke Best (1671), 195s. per oz.	234
Commonwealth (1649), maker AF., 290s. per oz.	413

	£
Henry VII, silver-gilt (1496), 6 oz. 16 dwt. sold in 1902	1,270
Elizabethan (1599), 490s. per oz.	197
Charles I (1635), 315s. per oz.	73
Charles II (1662), 290s. per oz.	46
William III (1699), 170s. per oz.	66

	£
Elizabethan goblet, 7 oz., 530s. per oz.	188
Charles I, wine cup (1638), 3 oz. 14 dwts.	88
Commonwealth Goblet (1650); maker, HS., 800s. per oz.	118

	PAGE
PREFACE	11
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS	19
CHAPTER I
THE MARKS STAMPED UPON SILVER	23
CHAPTER II
ECCLESIASTICAL PLATE	65
CHAPTER III
THE MAZER, THE STANDING CUP, THE FLAGON, THE TANKARD, THE BEAKER, THE WINE CUP	83
CHAPTER IV
THE SALT CELLAR	139
CHAPTER V
THE SPOON	177
CHAPTER VI
THE POSSET-POT, THE PORRINGER	195{18}
CHAPTER VII
THE CANDLESTICK	221
CHAPTER VIII
THE TEAPOT, THE COFFEE-POT, THE TEA-CADDY	239
CHAPTER IX
THE CASTER, THE SUGAR-BOWL, THE CREAM-PAIL, THE CAKE-BASKET	267
CHAPTER X
THE CREAM-JUG	299
CHAPTER XI
SCOTTISH SILVER	311
CHAPTER XII
IRISH SILVER	329
APPENDIX, CONTAINING TABLES OF DATE LETTERS. LONDON (1598-1835)	347
TABLE OF DIFFERENCES IN SHIELDS. LONDON (ELIZABETH TO GEORGE V)	357
ILLUSTRATIONS OF MARKS: LONDON, PROVINCIAL, SCOTTISH, AND IRISH	359
INDEX	411

I.	THE HALL-MARK
II.	THE STANDARD MARK
III.	THE DATE MARK
IV.	THE MAKER’S MARK
V.	THE HIGHER STANDARD MARK
VI.	THE DUTY MARK
VII.	THE FOREIGN MARK
	APPENDIX TO CHAPTER (pp. 347-409)
	Illustrations of typical Marks

		£
Tudor cup,	6 oz. 15 dwt. (1525)	880
”	on foot, 14 oz. 3 dwts. (1521)	4,130
”	and cover (James I) (1640), 66 oz.	4,000
Standing cup,	Charles I, 470s. per oz.	82
”	Charles II, 1 oz. 13 dwts., 520s. per oz.	42
Loving-cup,	Charles II (1678), 170s. per oz.	69
”	William and Mary (1688), 165s. per oz.	88
”	Queen Anne (1703), 120s. per oz.	140

	£
William III “Monteith” (1701), 100s. per oz.	398
Queen Anne “Monteith” (1705), 70s. per oz.	267
Punch-bowl (1750), 23s. per oz.	15

CHATS ON OLD SILVER

CHAPTER I

I. THE HALL-MARK

II. THE STANDARD MARK

III. THE DATE MARK

IV. THE MAKER’S MARK

V. THE HIGHER STANDARD MARK

VI. THE DUTY MARK

VII. THE FOREIGN MARK

CHAPTER II

CHAPTER III

SALE PRICES

CHAPTER IV

SALE PRICES

CHAPTER V

SALE PRICES

CHAPTER VI

SALE PRICES.

CHAPTER VII

SALE PRICES

CHAPTER VIII

SALE PRICES

CHAPTER IX

SALE PRICES

CHAPTER X

SALE PRICES

CHAPTER XI

CHAPTER XII

SALE PRICES

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER I

I

II

IV

V

SCOTTISH SILVER

SCOTTISH MARKS

IRISH SILVER

IRISH MARKS

CHATS ON
OLD SILVER

APPENDIX
TO
CHAPTER I